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

67–602PDF 2011

AXIS OF ABUSE: U.S. HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY

TOWARD IRAN AND SYRIA, PART 1

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 27, 2011

Serial No. 112–61

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 

VACANT 

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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

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 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Jeffrey D. Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau 

of Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State .......................................... 7

The Honorable Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State ................. 8

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Jeffrey D. Feltman and the Honorable Michael H. Posner: 

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 10

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 44

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 45

(1)

AXIS OF ABUSE: U.S. HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY 

TOWARD IRAN AND SYRIA, PART 1

WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST

AND SOUTH ASIA, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CHABOT. The subcommittee will come to order. I want to first 

apologize for running a little bit late here. We just had a series of 

votes on the floor so that’s why we are not starting on time. This 

committee kind of prides itself in trying to start on time as often 

as possible, so my apologies. 

I want to wish you all a good afternoon, and I want to welcome 

all of my colleagues and we will have more coming in, of course, 

to this hearing of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South 

Asia. 

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 in January. 

Just over 2 years ago, the regime in Tehran perpetuated one of 

the most blatant incidents of electoral fraud in recent history. This 

sparked widespread pro-democracy protests, and the people of Iran 

took to the streets by the thousands to demand that their most 

basic rights be respected. 

What followed made very clear, however, that this regime is not 

interested in the rights or wellbeing of its citizens. The world 

watched as the Iranian regime beat, tortured, raped and murdered 

its way through these protests. 

It is perhaps even more horrifying to consider that many of these 

abuses are still occurring nearly 2 years later. The Iranian regime 

has been carrying out what former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. 

Mark Wallace has called ‘‘One of the great human rights tragedies 

of the modern era.’’

Most notable is the incredible number of executions, which by 

some estimates now exceed 140 people, including children, a violation of international law. That this regime continues to claim legitimacy under the auspices of democratic elections is an insult, not 

only to the people of Iran, but to all those true democracies around 

2

the world whose governments actually do reflect the will of their 

peoples. 

Just over 6 months ago Syria, the Iranian regime’s closest ally 

in the region, joined Tehran in its ruthlessly repression of pro-democracy protests. As protests intensified, the Assad regime initiated a brutal crackdown that continues even as we speak. It is now 

estimated that over 1,800 Syrians have been killed, over 10,000 

have been jailed. Approximately 30,000 have been internally displaced, and nearly 12,000 fled to neighboring Turkey, where over 

8,500 remain. 

Reports coming out of Syria speak of unconscionably heinous 

human rights abuses, snipers targeting protesters, residents, including children and the elderly being rounded up, beatings, the 

use of electric shock to the genitals and torture of children, to name 

just several of the witnessed actions by the Assad regime. 

I want to condemn in the strongest possible terms both the actions of these regimes as well as the regimes themselves. These regimes together form an axis of abuse whose wanton disrespect for 

even the most basic human rights is undeniable. 

Today’s hearing, however, was called to examine U.S. policy. My 

concern lays not so much with what the administration has done 

as with what it has not done. The Obama administration’s human 

rights policies toward Iran and Syria have been both feeble and 

late. Rather than seizing the historic opportunity presented to it, 

the administration dithers by slowly inching toward challenging 

the legitimacy of these regimes in any meaningful way. 

This begs the question of how many people have to be tortured 

or die before the administration is willing to call these regimes 

what they are, not only illegitimate but depraved. That the administration continues to issue calling for a transition to a democratic 

government in Tehran is evidence of one of two possibilities. 

Either it still believes that a grand bargain on the illicit nuclear 

program is possible, or it is concerned that to do so, like in Libya, 

create a situation in which it must then ensure that the regime actually falls. 

The fine line that the administration is walking by condemning 

but not seriously challenging puts it in an untenable position and 

from the outside appears to be hedging rather than leading. And 

although the administration may think that to do so puts itself in 

a strategically advantageous position, it seriously underestimates 

the impact its actions, or lack thereof, have on actual outcomes. 

Indeed, the perception that calling for a democratic transition requires U.S. military operations to forcibly depose those in power is 

an excuse to avoid making a more permanent break with the regimes in Tehran and Damascus. 

Words, like many things, have a currency, and that currency is 

action. To highlight human rights abuses and then sanction fewer 

than a dozen individuals in each country respectively, is unacceptable. To vacillate between condemning these regimes and then 

later offering a lifeline should they reform, pits us against the people of those countries. 

The administration must realize two things. First, making no decision is in fact a decision in and of itself. And second, no matter 

3

who ultimately prevails, the U.S. can no longer do business with 

these regimes. They are beyond salvation. 

And I will now recognize the gentleman from New York, the 

ranking member Mr. Ackerman, for 5 minutes to make an opening 

statement. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank the chairman. I keep in my office a black 

and white photo of a place called Serock, Poland. It’s where my 

mom and her family come from. Following the Nazi invasion in 

1939, the Jews in Serock were rounded up, sent to the Warsaw 

ghetto and liquidated. Except for the desecrated cemetery, there 

are no Jews in Serock today. 

There was no help for them. The free world claimed not to know, 

and even if it had it probably still would not have helped. In 1939 

the troubles of Polish Jews were nobody’s problem but their own. 

Knowing that is part of me. It’s one of the reasons I have always 

felt that serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee is important. 

Not because I expect another Holocaust, though the Iranian regime 

seems intent on preparing one, and it must be stopped, but because 

there will always be a grave concern that the cry of people in distress or danger of being slaughtered will go unheeded. 

We said, ‘‘Never again.’’ But it happened again. It happened in 

Cambodia. It happened in Bosnia. It happened in Rwanda, Congo, 

Sudan. It’s happening today in Syria. And in each case governments, including ours, like guilty children look down at their shoes 

and say to no one in particular, ‘‘There’s nothing we could have 

done.’’

But that wasn’t really true then, and it isn’t true now. Even the 

weakest nation can bear witness. The least powerful country can 

still report the truth to the world. The most isolated state can, with 

no authority but its own, impose political and economic sanctions. 

And we are far from weak or powerless or isolated. But with regard 

to Syria, we have nonetheless failed to act. 

I have tried to explain our policy to Syrian Americans who were 

almost trembling with anxiety for their relatives, and I have failed, 

principally I think because our policy is so completely incoherent. 

Somehow it manages to combine colossal moral failure and unimaginable strategic imbecility with the overpowering stench of hypocrisy, thanks to our feckless intervention in Libya. Congratulations, gentlemen, you have hit the policy failure trifecta. 

History will record not only how we mostly ignored the people of 

Syria in their hour of need, but worse, how we overlooked our own 

blindingly obvious national interests in the demise of the Assad regime. Virtually every single interest that we have in the Middle 

East, whether it is aiding Israel’s search for peace and security, 

protecting Lebanon’s sovereignty, preventing Iranian hegemony, 

undercutting Hezbollah and Hamas, nurturing Iraq’s development, 

sustaining our partnership with Turkey, or just promoting democracy and human rights is dramatically, even exponentially, 

furthered by the Syrian people getting rid of the Assad regime. 

And to be very clear, I am not calling for U.S. military intervention in Syria. It is both unwise and unnecessary. But there is considerably more that we can and must do. First and above all, the 

President must call for Bashar al-Assad, that blood-soaked dictator, 

to step down. Trifling with the lives of the people of Syria with 

4

nuanced lawyerly phrases like ‘‘President Assad must understand 

he is not indispensible,’’ is shameful. 

Noting that Assad has lost legitimacy without calling for his immediate departure from power trivializes the deaths of thousands 

of Syrians killed by Assad’s thugs. And most importantly between 

the Syrian Accountability Act and the International Economic 

Emergency Powers Act, the President has at his disposal massive 

economic and political powers of coercion and punishment. The 

Obama administration has barely scratched even the surface of 

their utility in aiding the people of Syria in throwing off this regime of murders and thieves and torturers of children. 

All bilateral trade with Syria should end immediately. All Syrian 

banks should be barred from the U.S. financial system immediately. All Syrian regime assets in the United States should be 

frozen immediately. All official Syrian travel to the United States 

should cease immediately. We must act. 

I look forward with no joy to hearing from our witnesses’ efforts 

to defend the indefensible and to explain the inexplicable. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

Any other members who would like to make opening statements 

will have 1 minute, and I believe the gentleman from New York, 

Mr. Higgins, was—you are next Mr. Higgins. You are recognized 

for 1 minute. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing today. A fundamental principle of democracy is the 

right of self determination and freedom of expression. The people 

of both Syria and Iran this right has been denied. They have been 

denied freedom of speech and freedom of expression by oppressive 

regimes clinging to power however they can. 

This is an important time in our nation’s history. This is not only 

a regional conflict. It’s one of global consequence as well. The whole 

world is watching, civilian populations as well as authoritarian regimes, to see what the response of the United States will be. 

We have a moral obligation to continue efforts to undermine 

Assad, to encourage his departure as quickly as possible, and I look 

forward to the expert testimony of our panel here today. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, and the gentleman yields back. And the 

gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, is recognized for 1 

minute. 

Mr. MURPHY. I look forward to the gentlemen’s testimony. I will 

waive my opening statement. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Conolly, is recognized. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward 

very much to the testimony. I must say I respect you a lot, Mr. 

Chairman, but I don’t necessarily subscribe to your critique of the 

administration with respect to policy in Iran. I actually think we 

have been yielding some results in coordinating with allies and in 

enforcing the sanctions in a way that heretofore were not. 

With respect to my colleague’s and my friend’s critique of the 

Syria policy, it is powerful and needs to be heeded, but a word of 

caution. This is not a unidimensional situation. It’s a multi-dimenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:32 Oct 27, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\MESA\072711\67602 HFA PsN: SHIRL
5

sional situation and we have to not only worry about regime 

change, we have to worry about what takes its place. 

And so that’s a challenge for American diplomacy, and I think we 

need to respect that while at the same time expressing our frustration with pace and tone and the words being used that my colleague rightfully criticizes. With that I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch is recognized. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

witnesses for appearing today. I have long been concerned about 

the egregious human rights abuses taking place daily in Iran. Several months ago I introduced bipartisan legislation that would require mandatory investigations and impose sanctions on those who 

aided in the brutal crackdown following the June 2009 election. 

The regime has made it clear that it will not hesitate to use violence and intimidation to suppress any threats to its iron-fisted 

rule. The number of executions in Iran has been steadily rising, 

with 39 just in the month of March. 

The United States must show that we are serious in our commitment to fighting human rights abuses and to giving opposition the 

necessary tools to speak out and stand up to this brutal regime. I 

look forward to the witnesses’ testimony on U.S. policy and the efforts being made to document and publicize cases of abuse in Iran 

and providing platforms for the opposition moving forward. 

And I thank the chairman and I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman yields back. Thank you. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating is recognized if—or did he 

walk out? Okay. 

And then last but not least, I would ask unanimous consent that 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, who is a member of 

the full committee but not this subcommittee be entitled to all the 

privileges of the members of this subcommittee, except that he go 

last. So the gentleman is recognized for the purpose of making an 

opening statement for 1 minute. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Happy to go last. Glad to see Assistant Secretary 

Posner, who’s doing an outstanding job at DRL, and I thank the 

chairman for holding these hearings. I hope the Assistant Secretary would go back and talk to others at the State Department 

who are planning to issue a license to General Electric to repair 

the supposedly civilian aircraft of the Iranian airlines. 

These aircraft have been used and will be used to ferry weapons 

to Iran and then ferry them on to Syria, where Iranian weapons 

deliveries have already resulted in the deaths of hundreds of brave 

Syrian people. 

And I want to talk about the humanitarian crisis faced in Camp 

Ashraf. I want to commend to the Assistant Secretary’s reading 

and to my colleagues for possible co-sponsorship, House Resolution 

231. It was introduced by the chairman of the—chairwoman of the 

full committee and myself. And it urges that the United States do 

everything possible to ensure the physical security and protection 

of Camp Ashraf residents, noting that as recently as April 8th Iraqi 

forces initiated force against the residents of that camp. And apparently that some 34 people died, 300 were wounded. 

6

And I would also point out that the Iraqi Ambassador in trying 

to disclaim any responsibility for this, points that the MEK happens to be listed on the terrorist list. We need to protect the people 

of Camp Ashraf. 

I yield back and I thank the chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman yields back. Thank you very much, 

and the chair would like to note the presence of quite a number 

of people here relative to the Camp Ashraf issue. And I would just 

commend those people and their associates for their dedication and 

relentless commitment to their cause. 

And it has certainly been noted by many members of the Foreign 

Affairs Committee over the past weeks and months. And so we 

would just like to note that for the record, that they have been in 

attendance time after time after time, and it is duly noted for the 

record. 

At this time I would like to recognize the two members of the 

panel who will be testifying this afternoon and introduce them. 

We first have Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman who was sworn in as 

Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs on August 18, 

2009. A career member of the Foreign Service since January 1986, 

he has served in Iraq, Israel, Tunisia and Lebanon, and was the 

Ambassador on the Ground in Lebanon during the Cedar Revolution in 2005. 

Ambassador Feltman served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs from February 2008 

to his present assignment, serving concurrently as Acting Assistant 

Secretary of State for the Bureau since December 18, 2008. He received his Bachelor’s degree in history and fine arts from Ball State 

University in 1981 and his Master’s degree in law and diplomacy 

from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University 

in 1983. And we welcome you here this afternoon. 

And our other witness here this afternoon is Michael H. Posner, 

who was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau 

of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor on September 23, 2009. 

Prior to joining State Department, Mr. Posner was the executive 

director and then president of Human Rights First. He played a 

key role in proposing and campaigning for the first U.S. law providing for political asylum, which became part of the Refugee Act 

of 1980, and was a member of the White House Apparel Industry 

Partnership task force. 

Before joining Human Rights First, Mr. Posner was a lawyer in 

Chicago. He received his J.D. from the University of California, 

Berkeley School of Law, and a B.A. with distinctions and honors 

in history from the University of Michigan. And we welcome you 

here as well, Mr. Posner. 

And as I’m sure both very witnesses are very familiar with, we 

have the 5-minute rule and you will both be recognized for 5 minutes. We have a lighting system. The yellow light will come on to 

let you know you have got 1 minute to wrap up and we would ask 

you to keep within that time if at all possible. 

And Ambassador Feltman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Ackerman, members of the committee, Assistant Secretary 

7

Posner and I appreciate this opportunity and we ask that our full 

written statement be included in the record. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JEFFREY D. FELTMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador FELTMAN. This hearing is really important. It’s very 

timely. In our view it is absolutely critical that audiences in the 

Middle East see that the United States has not and will not ignore 

those who are struggling for their rights. 

And the fact that you have placed Syria and Iran together in the 

same hearing shines a spotlight on two governments that share 

shameful records on abusing their own citizens and on playing destructive and destabilizing roles in the region. 

Mr. Chairman, you were right. The actions that these countries 

are practicing are depraved. 

It is no accident that Iran is Bashar al-Assad’s best friend and 

that Syria is Iran’s best friend and that neither have any other 

true allies in the region. 

First, a few words on Syria. As Arab demonstrators demanded 

their rights, first in Tunisia and then in Egypt, Bashar al-Assad insisted to the world that he was different, that he was a reformer, 

that he was in touch with his people. Well, after months of protests 

and brutal crackdowns, the reality is clear. Bashar al-Assad is not 

a reformer but someone whose rule relies on terror, theft and torture. 

The regime’s violent response to protests has crystallized the 

protestor’s demands around freedom and the dismantling of the security apparatus. None of Assad’s reforms, so-called reforms, has 

resulted in the changes the Syrians want to see on the ground. 

The Syrian people now refuse to be subject to house-to-house 

raids, indiscriminate arrests, torture, shooting, behavior that Assad 

and his brutal security thugs seem incapable of unlearning. Demonstrators seek freedom, and the Assad regime responds with bullets and billy clubs. 

To consolidate his monopoly on power, Assad foments violence of 

an intentionally factional nature, seeking to hide the nature of his 

regime by exploiting the Syrian public’s latent fear of communal 

strife. As a direct consequence of Bashar’s approach, deadly violence has at times taken on a sectarian shade, such as the recent 

tragedy in the city of Homs. 

But change is coming to Syria. Bashar al-Assad can try to obstruct it. He can try to delay it, but he cannot stop it. The opposition is not waiting. They are organizing themselves. They are beginning to articulate an agenda for Syria’s future, one in which all 

citizens regardless of faith or ethnicity are equal participants. 

For our part, we have articulated clearly that the United States 

has nothing invested in the Bashar al-Assad regime and that we 

want to see a Syria that is united, where tolerance, respect for 

human rights and equality are the norms. This is the message that 

Ambassador Ford is delivering to the Syrian leadership and the 

Syrian people. 

8

I will turn in a minute to Syria’s best friends, Iran. Iranian leaders are shameless, dangerous hypocrites. They claim to be on the 

sides of Arab demonstrators in some countries, while sending advisors and material to Syria to aid brutality there. 

And they use a merciless iron fist against their own citizens who 

attempt to exercise their rights to demonstrate and to speak openly. We are not passive chroniclers of the horrors the Syrian Government is inflicting on its people or of Iran’s brutality. 

Our written statement details our promotion of political and 

human rights and what we are doing to push back against these 

abuses of protestors in both countries. 

We hope today’s hearing will serve as further evidence that the 

American people and our Government stand united in admiration 

and support for those who have boldly assumed the duty and made 

the sacrifices to advance their rights. For this opportunity we 

thank the committee again. 

But finally, I must conclude by expressing our deep and continuing concern for the safety and the wellbeing of all American 

citizens currently detained in Iran. In particular, we urge the Iranian Government to release at once Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal 

so that they may return to their families. We also ask Iran again 

to provide all information on missing American citizen Robert 

Levinson and to cooperate in reuniting Mr. Levinson with his family. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, very much. 

Mr. Posner, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. POSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, 

HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. POSNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and member of the committee for having us. I want to echo Jeff’s appreciation for giving 

us an opportunity to speak to these issues which we feel so deeply 

about. These are two countries, Iran and Syria, that are violating 

every important international human rights standard. 

The things that you on the panel describe, the various abuses, 

are things that we see, we agree with, and the question is now how 

to move forward. 

I want to just take a minute and highlight one aspect of the situation in Syria, and that’s the treatment of young people, of children. This set of demonstrations began in March in the southern 

city of Dara’a when security forces fired upon those calling for the 

release of children who had been detained for weeks simply for 

writing political graffiti on the walls. The regime responded with 

its usual methods, using gunfire, arrest, torture, abuse to kill and 

intimidate the protestors. 

Again, in the past several weeks we have seen the attacks 

against children continuing, including a 13-year-old named Hamza 

al-Khateeb, who was tortured and mutilated and his body was returned by Syrian security forces. A 10-year-old boy, a 4-year-old 

girl were killed during raids on several towns around Homs. And 

on July 15th a 12-year-old, Tallha Dalal, was shot in the head by 

police officers in Damascus. 

9

Horrific images of these bodies and those of other children have 

been smuggled out. Those responsible for these and other atrocities 

must be held accountable for their crimes. 

We have gone into lots of detail in the written testimony. You 

can read that. But we have no doubt, as you say, that at least 

1,600 Syrians have been killed, over 10,000 are now jailed. Security 

forces continue to hold people hostage to a widening crack down. 

And yet incredibly the people of Syria have lost their fear. The 

demonstrations are continuing. They are expanding. And as we 

have said repeatedly, President Assad has lost legitimacy, and he 

needs and will be held accountable for his actions. 

With respect to Iran, as my colleague, Assistant Secretary 

Feltman spelled out, we also are regularly reviewing the record of 

the government. We know how outrageous they have been and continue to be. They carry out, as Chairman Chabot, you pointed out, 

we think 190 executions this year, which is more than any country 

in the world except for China. 

The government also continues to impose draconian restrictions 

on speech. Journalists and bloggers are targeted as are teachers, 

trade unionists and others. The list of abuse goes on and on. 

Now, particularly troubling to us is the deep persecution of religious minorities. On May 1st the Revolutionary Court in the northern city of Bandar-e Anzali tried 11 Christians who were members 

of the Church of Iran, including the pastor of that church. We have 

seen this persecution not only against Christians but Sufis and the 

Baha’i. And I want to single out the Baha’i because they have been 

attacked repeatedly throughout the years. 

The United States has imposed sanctions against both of these 

governments. But we start from the premise, and I think this may 

be where our approach is not understood as well as it should be. 

We start from the premise that in both of these countries there is 

a courageous populous, a courageous group of people who are challenging these repressive governments, and our support needs to be 

rooted in the assumption that change will occur from within both 

of these countries. 

And we are doing a range of things both to support their ability 

to communicate among themselves and the world. We have extensive Internet freedom program. We have translated our materials 

into Arabic and Farsi. We are working to support non-governmental organizations who in both countries are severely persecuted. We are providing training to people. We are providing 

ability for them to organize and meet among themselves. 

Our belief is that these two governments, these two regimes cannot stand the test of time because their own people are going to 

be ultimately successful in bringing about sustainable democracy 

and human rights. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Feltman and Mr. Posner 

follows:]

10


67602a-1.eps
11


67602a-2.eps
12


67602a-3.eps
13


67602a-4.eps
14


67602a-5.eps
15


67602a-6.eps
16


67602a-7.eps
17


67602a-8.eps
18

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony, and we will now begin our questioning, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes for that purpose. 

As I am sure we can agree the numbers that were mentioned in 

both your testimonies are astonishing. What is more, just this 

morning the death count continues to rise. According to news reports, Syrian tanks surrounded a town near Damascus, killing 11 

and arresting 300 in one what one human rights activist called an 

‘‘act of vengeance.’’

Still even as Israel now stands up and says Assad must go, as 

it did yesterday, unfortunately we continue to vacillate. Secretary 

of State Hillary Clinton came close when she said that ‘‘from our 

perspective, he has lost legitimacy.’’ But the very next day President Obama walked back from this position by suggesting that 

Assad had not in fact lost legitimacy but was losing it in the eyes 

of his people. 

As I read stories like this I found myself asking what I had said 

in my opening statement, you know, how many more people have 

to die before we have the courage to stand up and say that Assad 

is illegitimate and he must go? He must leave. 

Additionally, I don’t see why we are willing to stand up and call 

Gaddafi what he is, a ruthless murderer, but we don’t do the same 

for Assad. When asked about this very issue, White House Press 

Secretary Jay Carney said that Libya was a ‘‘unique situation.’’ We 

had a Gaddafi regime that was ‘‘moving against its own people in 

a coordinated military fashion and was about to assault a very 

large city on the promise that the regime would show that city and 

its residents no mercy.’’ That was his quote. 

Is this not what is happening right now in Syria? President 

Obama himself said of Syria that ‘‘We are not anywhere near the 

kind of situation that drew all the international support for Libya.’’ 

Although the situation has intensified since the President said 

that, our policy doesm’t seem to have changed accordingly. 

People are still tying and we still have not called for Assad’s departure. It is not enough to say that we are not committed to him 

and then to condemn his actions. It is time for us to say that Assad 

must go. Why does the administration still refuse to do this? 

Also, why did we call Gaddafi illegitimate but not Assad? What 

makes the two of them different? How are they different than the 

regime in Tehran for that matter? And I will leave it there at this 

point. 

And I would recognize either gentleman. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I mean first, let us be clear. We all agree what is happening in 

Syria is absolutely deplorable. It is appalling. It is unacceptable. 

Democracy is Syria’s future. Bashar al-Assad is Syria’s past, and 

the sooner that we get to that past, the sooner that he is relegated 

completely to the past the better. I think we all agree. 

You know, when I look across the region that falls into the Bureau that I head, NEA, from Morocco through Iran, I see a lot of 

common elements, but I also see a lot of differences. And there is 

basically no one size fits all solution in the region that I oversee. 

We are looking for the best tools to support the people on the 

ground. What is the best way to promote democracy in Egypt, in 

19

Tunisia, in Libya, in Syria? It is different. And the main thing is, 

again, what helps those people on the ground at the, you know, 

right time? When is the right time for us to make a statement like 

that? 

It may be that we are going to make a statement such as you 

suggest, such as you would like to see us now. But we have the 

drama of that once and when is the right time? When will we make 

sure that the story remains about the Syrian people and not about 

us? You want to 

Mr. POSNER. I would just add to that. You know, I am very focused having worked 30 years in the human rights movement. I 

know the importance of our working with civil society, with human 

rights activists, the people that are standing on the street and risking their lives every day. And preparing for the moment when the 

transition does come, does occur and allowing us to go forward to 

create,to help support a democratic transition, that is the focus for 

us. 

We are listening to people on the ground. Ambassador Ford 2 

weeks ago or 3 weeks ago when he went to Hama was greeted as 

a hero because we were standing in solidarity with the people on 

the street. When he went back to his Embassy, our Embassy in Damascus, government supported thugs attacked the Embassy. 

That tells you—that gives me a sense that we are doing the right 

thing and we are going about this in a way that reinforces those 

who are on the front line. That is what this is about. There is no 

doubt for the people standing in the streets in many now Syrian 

cities, that we are on their side. 

Mr. CHABOT. Well, actually I don’t have time to ask another 

question at this time. I appreciate your responses, however, I think 

that many of us do believe that we ought to be very clear that 

Assad has to go now as we made that pretty clear with Gaddafi. 

I wouldn’t say that our actions ultimately met that statement 

sufficiently because he’s obviously still there. But we are going to 

have a second round. My time has expired. 

I recognize the gentleman from New York Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the chairman. 

This shouldn’t be that hard. You know, we didn’t get involved in 

World War II because of the Holocaust. We didn’t get involved 

when 1 million Jews were killed or 2 million or 3 million or 4 million or 1 million who weren’t Jewish killed or 2 million or 3 million 

or 4 million or 5 million. 

We got involved because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and 

shame on us for waiting. 

We can’t just be sitting here while these people are being slaughtered and maimed, where children are being killed because we 

think it is better to observe the diplomatic niceties in our approach. 

Tell that to people whose kids or kids whose families and parents 

are being killed. It is unfair. It is inhumane. It is unworthy of us 

as a society. 

I can understand we are waiting for the appropriate time, but for 

other people the time is too late. It is in our every foreign policy 

interest for this guy to go. 

I know what you are waiting for. You are waiting for, just like 

we waited on all the others, for the guy to be everything but out 

20

the door before we say you should go out the door, to be able to 

go ‘‘whew’’ and blow him off the edge of the cliff so that there is 

no risk. He is already really out. Who is going to appreciate that? 

People appreciate you coming to their aid when they are at their 

most vulnerable. 

We are kind of risk averse here. But you know, this has to be 

done. You know what the outcome is going to be, and it is not the 

romantic in me that says in the end democracy is going to win and 

the streets will win out. It is the mathematician in me that tells 

me that. 

And as somebody, and I think we all are, people who believe in 

the values that we espouse, and that you have articulated so well 

here today, so what’s the result of all of that reasoning and thinking and hemorrhaging from our hearts? What are we waiting for? 

Who does it hurt? 

Are you worried about—are we worried about hurting his feelings? We are hedging our bet here just in the odd chance that he 

is going to be able to hang on so that we can continue to do business with a murderer. Push him. Say it. Do it. He may not leave 

when you say it, and it is no embarrassment to us if not. The embarrassment is if we don’t say it. Can we say it, question mark? 

Mr. POSNER. Congressman, I share your sense of urgency and 

outrage. I don’t think it is right or fair to say that we are standing 

still and hedging our bets. If we want to hedge our bets with a government we don’t call them barbaric. We don’t constantly on a 

daily basis talk about the reprehensible——

Mr. ACKERMAN. And names will never harm me. 

Mr. POSNER. Well, thereis more than names. This is a—we are 

extremely focused. I am focused. Jeff is——

Mr. ACKERMAN. What is the down—Yes, I understand but what’s 

the downside to saying to him get out? 

Mr. POSNER. What we are saying is——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Are we going to be embarrassed if he doesn’t listen? 

Mr. POSNER. No. We are saying at this moment that we are 

standing behind the Syrian people and their demand for political 

change. This is about them. It is not about us. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Send them a Hallmark card. 

Mr. POSNER. No, it is not because it is backed by action. And the 

action is an American Ambassador who takes the risk of going out 

and standing in the street in Hama. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. That was important and courageous. 

Mr. POSNER. And appreciated by the people who were standing 

there. It is our activity, supporting the ability of the opposition to 

meet, to meet in Turkey, to meet inside the country. It is our effort 

to try to give them the tools to be ready for the day when change 

will occur. And it will occur. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I’m saying——

Mr. POSNER. All of those things are part of a strategy and the 

strategy, not unlike what you are saying, is the expectation, the realization that President Assad has lost——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Why not lay down your cards——

Mr. POSNER [continuing]. His legitimacy. 

21

Mr. ACKERMAN [continuing]. And go through all the rest of it 

anyway? Tell him to get out and then continue with what you are 

doing? But let people know where we stand and not be unambiguous as we have been. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired but if either of 

the gentlemen would like respond they can. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Congressman Ackerman, the Syrian people know where we stand. That is why Robert Ford had his vehicle 

pelted with flowers as he was going through Hama. People know 

where we stand in Syria. They see what we are doing. And also 

this idea that we are hedging our bets, I don’t know how you calculate it but I calculate that, you know, it is not going Bashar’s 

way. 

He cracks down more he is going to enrage the people more. 

Demonstrations pop up all over the country in new places. They 

come closer and closer to the center of Damascus. He pulls back as 

he should and stops the torture and stops the torture and the 

shooting and the killing and the arrests. Then you have enormous 

momentum like you have in Hama. 

He is losing, but that doesn’t mean that he is losing because of 

our words. He is losing because of what he is doing and because 

of the fact that the Syrian people are at last waking up from the 

political coma he has tried to keep them in for 40 years. And they 

have transcended their fear and they are standing up for a better 

future for them. He is the past. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair would just note that I would like to say this is one of 

those rare occasions when the Republican chair and the Democratic 

ranking member agree but actually we actually agree quite often 

on this committee and I share the ranking member’s frustration 

here relative to this matter. 

And I would at this time recognize the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for——

Mr. CHABOT. Excuse me. Prior to that I—if the gentleman would 

yield. The gentleman is in the same position as the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Sherman, a member of the full committee and not 

a member of this subcommittee so I would ask unanimous consent 

that he also have the privileges of a member of this subcommittee. 

Although he went last and since he’s last on this side at this time, 

the gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me 

to join this hearing. My questions will be to you, Mr. Feltman. This 

is the third time you and I have talked. We talked once in November. We talked second in March and now here we are again. 

Those previous times, in my opinion, I didn’t get a straight answer. I think really you were just trying to kill the 5 minutes and 

not give me an answer at all. There are still loudspeakers in Camp 

Ashraf. What has the State Department done, if anything, to remove the loudspeakers that are blaring into Camp Ashraf? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. We are trying to move Camp Ashraf. 

Mr. POE. Tell me about the loudspeakers. I don’t want to hear 

about that yet, about being moved. 

22

Ambassador FELTMAN. What we are trying to do is to address a 

very real human rights situation in Ashraf that affects 3,400 individuals and that could get a heck of a lot worse by the end of the 

year. You have a state within a state that——

Mr. POE. Has the State Department—just answer the question. 

Has the State Department done anything in opposition or protesting the loudspeakers blaring into Camp Ashraf? It is either a 

yes or it is a no. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Well, I’m sorry that that’s the litmus test 

for whether we care about human rights in the Camp Ashraf or 

not. 

Mr. POE. It’s either a yes or a no. I will get to the human rights. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. I’m not aware. I’m not aware of anything 

because we are focused on——

Mr. POE. So the State Department hasn’t—I will reclaim my 

time. 

Ambassador FELTMAN [continuing]. The larger human rights. We 

are——

Mr. POE. Thank—I will reclaim my time, Mr. Ambassador. The 

State Department hasn’t done anything about the loudspeakers. 

Thank you. Finally an answer that I first asked in November. 

Since we last talked, the Iraqi Government has invaded Camp 

Ashraf and murdered 34 people and injured more than 70. My 

opinion is one of the reasons they use for an excuse is the fact that 

the State Department continues to list the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization. When is the State Department going to make 

a decision as to whether to remove them from the list or not? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Congressman, I would like to separate the 

FTO designation from Camp Ashraf. We have a pending potential 

crisis, catastrophe in Camp Ashraf. 

Mr. POE. Just answer the question that I asked, not—don’t answer one that I didn’t ask. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. It’s still—the lawyers are still working on 

it. There were documents that were recently declassified to give to 

the lawyers of the MEK so the process is still ongoing. It’s taking 

a while because the declassification process, the need to make sure 

that both sides have full documentation. It’s an ongoing process. 

In the meantime, as you know——

Mr. POE. When do you think it will take place was my question? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know, Congressman. But as you know, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals did keep 

the FTO designation in place while the review goes on. But the review is ongoing. Documents are being declassified, passeC to the 

lawyers of the MEK to make sure they have the information as 

well. 

Mr. POE. The residents of Camp Ashraf don’t want to be removed, and I’m sure that you are aware that the full committee of 

the Foreign Affairs Committee passed my amendment by unanimous voice vote, that the House of Representatives through the 

Foreign Affairs Committee does not want Camp Ashraf moved 

somewhere else. 

This will pass. It will be legislation. But the State Department, 

your position is the State Department wants them moved. But of 

course, Iraq wants them moved and so do the folks in Iran. Is it 

23

still the State Department’s position to move the Camp somewhere 

else in Iraq? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. We are trying to do a two-part program, 

Congressman, where the residents of Camp Ashraf will ultimately 

be relocated to a third country, which is what they have told us 

they would like. 

Mr. POE. Wouldn’t it be true—would it be correct that if the designation was removed, the Foreign Terrorist Organization designation, against the residents of Camp Ashraf, the MEK, it would be 

easier for them to disperse and go throughout the world? Many of 

them are citizens in other countries. Wouldn’t that be easier for 

them to do it? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Our FTO designation has no impact on 

Europe, for example. So it has nothing to do with the European 

willingness to take in the residents of Camp Ashraf or not. And 

it——

Mr. POE. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. When I went 

and visited with Mr. Maliki and for almost 2 hours with other 

members of this committee and wanted to go see the residents at 

Camp Ashraf and get their side of the story, we were, of course, 

denied that. We didn’t want to—he didn’t want us to hear the other 

side, possibly the truth. 

He said one reason that the people in Camp Ashraf are treated 

the way they are treated by Iraq is because the State Department 

continues to designate them as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. 

Now, that is what he says. Do you agree with that statement? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. You know, the situation is complicated to 

talk about in 9 seconds, but they have no status in Iraq. We are 

trying to come up with something by which 3,400 people are protected, that they participate in the discussions about how they can 

be protected, where they stay with their leaders which is what they 

have said they wanted to do, not to be dispersed. Where they stay 

as a group. 

We are trying to find a way, Congressman, believe me, by which 

we avoid a real problem that could happen at the end of the year 

because Iraq is sovereign now. So we are trying to come up with 

a way by which—and I hope that the friends of those in Camp 

Ashraf will talk to their leaders about our plan isn’t that bad. Our 

plan is 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I didn’t get an answer. We will meet again and 

we will ask the questions again. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Higgins, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The communication 

coming from the panel indicates that the civilian population of 

Syria is comfortable and supportive of the United States’ position 

relative to Assad. Is that an accurate assessment? 

Mr. POSNER. You know, realistically, the opposition in Syria is a 

very multiple—multifaceted group. They don’t have one opinion. I 

think it is overwhelmingly the case, though, that people that are 

risking their lives, who are out on the streets, recognize that we 

24

are trying to amplify their voices. We are trying to provide protection. 

Ambassador Ford is every day talking to relatives, talking to people who are on the receiving end of violence and trying to advocate 

on their behalf. They understand this litany of things that we have 

said suggest—don’t just suggest. They say very strongly this government has lost legitimacy. We are standing with the people that 

are in the street. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Got it. You know, Assad is a bad guy. He lacks legitimacy. He murders his own people. His father destroyed Hama 

in 1982, some 10,000 people were killed. Streets were plowed down. 

It would seem to me that a strong declarative statement by the 

United States with respect to Assad stepping down would sent the 

appropriate message to the international community and authoritarian regimes throughout the world about what is going to be tolerated and what is not. 

Is there not a concern, a public policy concern within the State 

Department about not taking that decisive step and calling explicitly for his removal? 

Mr. POSNER. Congressman, I spend a good part of my day in internal debates and discussions within the State Department about 

the use of language in public statements. When we say not only 

that he has lost, President Assad has lost legitimacy, is not 

indispensible, when we say that he has placed himself and his regime on the wrong side of history, when we call him barbaric, when 

we say his conduct is reprehensible, in the world in which I live 

that is about as strong language as I get. And it is the language 

that says we have absolutely lost faith in this government. 

We are moving in a very deliberate way to support the will of 

the Syrian people who are out on the street. I am very comfortable 

with the fact that at this moment that the United States Government is doing what it can and should, positioning ourselves to help 

a democratic transition in Syria. That is the message we are conveying here. And I think it is the message the people of Syria understand full well, and they are appreciative of it. 

Mr. POE. All right. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. I certainly support what my colleague and 

friend Mike Posner just said, and I go back to what I said before. 

There is no one-size-fits-all solutions to the transitions taking place 

in the Middle East. We had a 30-year strategic partnership with 

President Mubarak of Egypt. When President Obama said essentially that it is time for Mubarak to step aside, we knew that those 

words would mean a lot to President Mubarak because of the long 

relationship with him. 

And we knew they would have the impact that they should have 

coming from the President, coming from the White House. We don’t 

have the same sort of relationship with Bashar al-Assad, but I 

don’t think that he is under any illusion of where we stand when 

it comes to him. And certainly as we have said, the people on the 

street in Syria know where we stand. 

Mr. POE. I will yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I think the 

gentleman from Virginia Mr. Connolly was next and is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

25

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Posner, I take 

your point that the fine art of diplomacy sometimes involves the 

parsing of sentences and the careful perception of precise words or 

sometimes deliberately ambiguous words. 

But surely you can appreciate that there are many audiences 

when the State Department speaks, and as you have heard from 

this dais, there are one audience, Members of Congress who hear 

in that language hedging, unwillingness to call out, you know, violent murderous acts by a government against its own people for 

what it is, and a clarion call for regime change. How would you respond? 

Mr. POSNER. Well, to go back to what I said earlier, I don’t think 

there is any ambiguity about the extent to which we have condemned the violence. We have condemned it in broad strokes, barbaric, reprehensible. And we have condemned it in detail. We have 

condemned it at the level of the President and the Secretary of 

State, and we have condemned it throughout our Government. So 

there is no doubt about the facts and our understanding of those 

facts. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So it is your position that there is absolute clarity about U.S. policy and U.S. intent with respect to the Assad regime? 

Mr. POSNER. I think if you are standing on the streets of Hama 

there is no doubt that the United States Government has been on 

the side of the people helping both amplify their voices, protecting 

them. That is what Ambassador Ford was doing. He was protecting 

people who were facing down guns and who were likely on that Friday to be shot at. His presence there made a difference. 

When the families of victims, families of people who have disappeared, families of people who are being tortured come into the 

Embassy, they understand that the United States Government is 

trying to help alleviate their pain and their suffering. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Posner. 

Mr. POSNER. That is really what this is about. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No, it isn’t. No, it is not. Foreign policy isn’t just 

about an audience in Hama. Foreign policy is also about the domestic audience here that supports or doesn’t support our foreign policy. What you have heard from this dais is Members of Congress 

have trouble understanding what you just said. So it may be clear 

in Hama. It is not so clear in the halls of Congress, and that is 

your responsibility as well as ours. That is my point. 

You have many audiences. That is an important one and I respect it. But you need to, you, collectively, need to respect this one. 

Otherwise you are going to erode confidence in what you are trying 

to do. 

And so I would commend to you, you know, parse those sentences 

and select carefully those words for precision or deliberate ambiguity with this audience in mind as well. 

Mr. POSNER. You know, and I appreciate that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Mr. POSNER. And we appreciate the fact that you are having this 

hearing. I think it serves the interests that we both share, which 

is a move for change. 

26

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ambassador Feltman, what is our goal in Syria, 

understanding that peace and goodwill to mankind is not a foreign 

policy? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Our goal would be to see a different sort 

of government, a government that was not playing a destabilizing 

role in the region but a positive role in the region, that was not 

funding Hezbollah and trying to dominate Lebanon, that was not 

shipping terrorists to Iraq. That was not abusing its own people. 

A government that is accountable to its own people, that represents the rich diversity of Syria at peace with its neighbors, respectful of human rights. That is the Syria that the opposition has 

been saying they want to see. That is the Syria we want to support. 

And that is the Syria that is coming. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So Mr. Ambassador, therefore, implicitly we 

should conclude logically we favor a regime change because this regime can’t do anything else. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. No, you are absolutely right. This regime 

has been a strategic enemy of the United States and has abused 

its own people. And a different sort of Syria can play a much better 

role bilaterally with us and in the region, as well as in protecting 

its own people. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And I have got 34 seconds, but are we concerned 

that with the best of intentions in calling for that regime change 

we need to be concerned about what takes its place? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Well, we certainly have our views about 

what should take its place. The opposition is becoming increasingly 

organized, articulate a positive vision going forward, the sort of 

Syria that we have discussed that we would like to see. We have 

no crystal ball that can guarantee an outcome, but we certainly can 

try to help shape that outcome. 

I mean, as we have said multiple times, change is coming. And 

the current situation where you have Syria with Hezbollah, Syria 

exporting terror to Iraq, Syria abusing its own people, it is not a 

friend of the United States. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. My time is up. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, thank you very much. Pardon me for 

being late. I, as you know, run in and out of different meetings at 

the same time. And I know that some questions have already been 

raised, but I would like to be a little more specific on first of all 

the massacre that took place in Camp Ashraf in April. 

What have you done to—I mean you are human rights here. You 

are the guy at the State Department who is supposed to be concerned about human rights. What have we done to prevent another 

massacre since then? Whoever? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Congressman, thank you. It is we have 

condemned what happened in April. Obviously you certainly saw 

the condemnation, but what we are trying to do now is to prevent 

more such incidents. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So what have we done to prevent another 

massacre? 

27

Ambassador FELTMAN. Well, what we are doing now is we are 

trying to negotiate with the leadership and the residents of Camp 

Ashraf about security arrangements that would protect the 34 individuals that are there, abide by their demand that they not be separated from their leadership, and provide safety going forward. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Security arrangements? What security arrangements? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. I mean we have—I think you are aware, 

Congressman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What specifically? What security arrangements are you talking about? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. What we are trying to do is to find a way 

by which we can allow the Iraqis to exercise the sovereignty that 

is their right on, you know, sovereign Iraqi territory. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Correct. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. While protecting the rights, the human 

rights of 3,400 people who are at Camp Ashraf who don’t have any 

status inside of Iraq. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. And by working with the residents and 

the leadership of the Camp, the ICRC, the Iraqi Government, to 

come up with a way by which the residents and leaders of Camp 

Ashraf themselves are participating in decisions that affect their 

future. Right now they are sitting there waiting and who knows? 

We don’t want to see another massacre happen, but something 

could happen. So we are trying to work with them to 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, right, well okay. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. relocate them as a preliminary step for 

the relocation effort. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Got it, got it, so we are talking. We are 

talking. We are talking and we haven’t reached a decision yet. 

There was a massacre of 35 people who were intentionally killed 

by Iraqi troops. This is not an unknown bomber. This is an act of 

a sovereign government deciding that it will kill unarmed civilians 

in order to achieve an objective. 

We are now working with them or talking with them. We have, 

what, 50,000 troops still in Iraq? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. It is a little lower than that, 40 some 

now. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And up until this time, up until the 

time before the massacre we had made a pledge to the people of 

Camp Ashraf that we were going to protect them from such things 

as massacres from the Iraqis. Is that correct? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Well, Congressman, the fact is that from 

January 1, 2009 the Iraqi Government itself has been responsible 

for security inside of Iraq. We are no longer there providing security inside of Iraq. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. But we have 50,000 troops in Iraq, and 

if there is—and I would hope that this isn’t like the Dutch did 

down in the Balkans when—well, you know, this really isn’t our jurisdiction so we are going to let these guys come in and massacre 

unarmed people right in front of us. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. But Congressman, what we are really trying to do is we are looking at the calendar. We have a security 

28

agreement with which we will comply. Our troops will be out under 

the terms of that security agreement by the end of December. At 

the end of December we will no longer be there the way we are 

now, so——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, well, okay——

Ambassador FELTMAN [continuing]. We are trying to find a solution now. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, one of the—look. One of the options, 

of course, is taking the people of Camp Ashraf to a third country. 

That is one option that we need to talk to them about. But no third 

country is going to take them as long as we designate this group 

as a terrorist organization. And the State Department has been 

dragging its feet for years on redesignating this group. 

We have designated them a terrorist organization in order to 

curry favor with the Mullah dictatorship in Iran and it has resulted in a massacre of 35 innocent people who were unarmed and 

the wounding of hundreds of others. At the very least the State Department should be working overnight and tomorrow to issue the 

fact that they are no longer on the terrorist list because that is the 

problem. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Congressman, I respectfully disagree. We 

have talked to the European governments about this. They don’t 

take into account our FTO designation at all. They take in——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, are the European governments the only 

ones that have options of where we might be able to take these 

people? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. No. The FTO designation applies to the 

United States. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. But for Camp Ashraf it is a number of 

things, such as they don’t——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It applies for a lot of other countries when 

the United States designates a group as terrorists, on a terrorist 

list, and we are asking them to take people into their country who 

are on a terrorist list. Now, if you want to do your duty in terms 

of responsible overseeing of a human rights standard, we should 

start with taking actions like this that would be easy to take that 

action which would prevent future massacres. 

And I am watching and I don’t see that for whatever reason it 

is. It is still this politics of leaving these people on the terrorist list 

that is keeping them at risk of another major disaster where 

maybe this time hundreds will be killed rather than just 35. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman from Florida Mr. Deutch 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Feltman, I would like to join you in calling for the immediate release of Robert Levinson. Robert Levinson and his wife 

Christine are constituents of mine. It has been now more than 4 

years since he disappeared in Iran. They are awaiting word. I will 

ask you here to share whatever information you can with us. If it 

is more appropriate to share that privately I would ask that you 

come to my office and provide the most detail possible. 

29

Ambassador FELTMAN. I would prefer coming to your office and 

talk about Robert Levinson, Congressman Deutch. Thank you. 

Mr. DEUTCH. We will arrange that. Secretary Posner, what is the 

status of the opposition movement in Iran at the moment? 

Mr. POSNER. As in many countries where there has been a lack 

of political space to operate, the status of the opposition is fragmented and diffuse. There are very few opportunities for them to 

exercise their political muscles. But they are, I would say, increasingly frustrated. Obviously frustrated by a government that is repressive in every way, a government that allows them little space 

to speak freely, to get out into the streets, to meet privately even 

to discuss political issues. 

Mr. DEUTCH. What are we doing to support them? 

Mr. POSNER. Well, we are doing several things. I mean one of the 

things that I am very involved in, and Congress has been very supportive of this, to build capacity for people using the new tools of 

technology, the Internet and social media to communicate with 

each. Again, in a place where you are not allowed to go to the 

street and where government has security forces at every corner, 

it is very important for people to be able to communicate. 

We have got a very aggressive Internet freedom program that includes wide translation of materials into Farsi, training of activists 

both on how to use the technology, but also how to protect themselves from a government that spends a lot of time and money trying to disrupt their ability to communicate and makes it dangerous. 

We are working also constantly to try to allow Iranian groups to 

communicate in and out of the country, to meet, to gather, to begin 

to think about what is Iran going to look like after this nightmare 

ends? And we are very, very focused. 

Mr. DEUTCH. At the same time, I think there is more that we 

could do to crack down on the human rights abusers. Part of the 

new legislation, around the legislation, is bipartisan legislation 

that I had introduced that will do just that. I look forward to working with you on that. 

I want to switch back to Syria for a second. Secretary Feltman, 

there were some reports, published reports earlier in the month 

that Syrian mission personnel under the Syrian Ambassador were 

conducting video and photographic surveillance of people participating in peaceful demonstrations in the United States. They were 

effectively, according to these reports, watching. They were effectively spying on American citizens. 

The Ambassador was called into the State Department by one of 

your colleagues, and I have been unable to determine what happened as a result. And what the status of the State Department’s 

investigation of these very serious charges is? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Congressman Deutch, thanks for the 

question, because they are serious charges. They are extremely serious charges. And the colleague that called him in was Assistant 

Secretary of State Eric Boswell who heads up our diplomatic security bureau, but also oversees the Office of Foreign Missions, which 

deals with Embassies that are located here which is why he was 

the counterpart. 

30

And he called him in because of the seriousness of these charges 

and made it clear that this is not behavior, these allegations demonstrate behavior that is not behooving of diplomatic status here. 

It was to the charge, by the way——

Mr. DEUTCH. Yes, excuse me. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. It was the charge not—it was not the Ambassador. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Excuse me 1 second. Excuse me for 1 second. It is—

it goes well beyond——

Ambassador FELTMAN. It’s not——

Mr. DEUTCH [continuing]. This is not becoming of diplomatic behavior. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. No, it is not consistent with his diplomatic mission is for sure. There is another——

Mr. DEUTCH. But the accusation is that they have been spying 

on American citizens. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. There is another investigation that is 

under way that we would have to talk about in a different setting. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Okay, well, and I look forward to that. But I’m simply asking——

Ambassador FELTMAN. Well, it is——

Mr. DEUTCH [continuing]. When the Ambassador was called 

in——

Ambassador FELTMAN. It was the charge d’affaires. The Ambassador wasn’t there. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Well, by all reports including the report coming 

from the State Department, it was the Ambassador who was called 

in. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Perhaps you are right, Congressman 

Deutch. I believe it was the charge d’affaires, though. 

Mr. DEUTCH. If I—Mr. Chairman——

Ambassador FELTMAN. The Ambassador has been—the Ambassador was on—was out of the country at the time I believe. 

Mr. DEUTCH. So the—I am going to—I am going to claim a few 

extra seconds to continue. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. No. 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, go ahead. Without objection, the gentleman is 

recognized for 1 additional minute. Thank you. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, thank you. The 

statement that came out of the State Department said that the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell called Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha into the State Department on 

Wednesday, July 6th to express a number of our concerns with reported actions of certain Syrian Embassy staff in the U.S. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Are you—you are telling me that that——

Ambassador FELTMAN. No, that must be—I’m sorry. I am sorry, 

Congressman Deutch. I will stand corrected by the State Department statement. Let me just—I can just go there—we share your 

concern about this. This is—these allegations, if proven true, demonstrate outrageous abuse of diplomatic status in this country. 

So we share your concern about this. There is an investigation 

under way. 

31

Mr. DEUTCH. And we can speak further—and we can speak further about the investigation. I am asking if you are not at liberty 

to discuss the status of that investigation here we can do that in 

my office. What I am asking about is since there were reports, including a statement from the State Department publicizing this 

meeting that took place, I am simply asking what transpired in 

that meeting since we have not seen any reports of that that have 

come out since? And can you confirm the Ambassador was at that 

meeting or not? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, but if you can 

answer the question go ahead. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. No, you know, I am sorry—I am sorry for 

being wrong about who he met with. I have obviously got the meeting confused, but there has been an ongoing investigation. It is 

under way into the allegations. We are not aware of new allegations since the time of the meeting. We haven’t—new allegations 

of events like that that have taken place since then we are not 

aware of any. 

The Ambassador himself, who was the subject of some of these 

allegations, is currently out of the country, scheduled to come back 

some time in August, but the investigation is under way. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. We are going to 

go through a second round here and I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I would like to first talk about Iran. What actually is our policy 

on Iran at the moment? Are we trying to negotiate a deal with the 

regime? Are we trying to undermine it or both? If we are trying to 

negotiate a deal with it, at what point would the administration 

conclude that this regime is beyond salvation? And I would ask 

your answer to that. Are we at that point yet that it is beyond salvation? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. I am not quite sure even if we conclude 

that because if you look at their—if you look at their repugnant behavior in the region, how they have defied the international community and all sorts of things from human rights to international 

nuclear regulations and law. The defiance of the Security Council 

regulations. 

If we declare that they are—if we have decided that they are beyond—that they have gone beyond acceptable behavior which they 

clearly have, well then what? We still have to deal with the reality 

that Iran is playing a destabilizing, destructive role in the region 

and how best do we confront it? We have to confront it through security alliances in the region. 

Mr. CHABOT. No, let me come at it a little different way. Again, 

Iran, in the aftermath of the June 2009 election, protestors in Iran 

coalesced into a broad-based pro-democracy opposition. The administration, however, offered no significant, tangible or moral support 

really at the time. And current support I would argue is half-hearted at best. 

Indeed, some analysts believe that the administration has written off the Iranian opposition, believing that it is dead. Has the administration indeed determined that the Iranian opposition movement is dead? And what is the administration actually doing beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:32 Oct 27, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\MESA\072711\67602 HFA PsN: SHIRL
32

yond increasing programming and social media activity to assist 

the Iranian opposition movement? 

Are we providing technical, monetary or other such tangible assistance similar to what we did with Solidarity in Poland? And if 

not, why not? And what needs to happen before the administration 

would consider throwing meaningful support, and I mean meaningful support, behind the Iranian opposition movement? And I would 

yield. 

Mr. POSNER. Let me answer that. I think there are three aspects 

to what we are doing. One, we are providing support, both through 

the new social media but also support to civil society activists. We 

don’t, you know, put lists on the rooftop, but we are certainly mindful of the variety of democrats, democratic forces in Iran. And we 

are supporting them in a range of ways. 

Secondly, we are extremely outspoken, and this includes the 

President and the Secretary of State. I think we have made more 

public statements about Iran than any other country. And those 

statements continue including with this hearing, and again, we appreciate that. 

The third aspect which we haven’t talked about is that we have 

really ramped up our efforts not only to impose sanctions, which 

we have done against key leaders, but against—but also to bring 

others along. And we are starting to succeed at that. 

We led an effort at the U.N. Human Rights Council to have a 

special expert, a rapporteur appointed several months ago. The 

United States is taking a lead in a range of diplomatic fora and we 

will continue to do so to isolate Iran and to make clear that not 

only we but our allies need to be part of this effort. 

So it is a combination of support for the activists, public commentary and work at the United Nations. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. I have only got 1 more minute, so let me 

just—one other issue relative to Iran, the three American hikers 

who were detained by the Iranian Government back on July 31, 

2009, nearly 2 years ago to the day. That is longer than the 444 

days of the original Iranian hostage crisis. 

They are being held on trumped up espionage charges and are 

awaiting trial before what will, without a doubt, be a kangaroo 

court. What is the administration doing to secure their release? 

What consequences will the Iranian regime face should it not release them? And what consequences has the Iranian regime faced 

to date as a result of this outrageous behavior? And I will yield. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Chairman, thanks for the question because that is one of the reasons why I closed my own opening statement with mentioning these, the two hikers, was to reinforce the 

point that we are working every day to try to secure the release 

of these two hikers. There is a lot of diplomatic activity that is 

going on about these two hikers. Of course, one was released. One 

of the three was released thanks to some of our friends in the region and beyond. 

The Swiss currently represent our interests in Iran and they are 

very active with this portfolio in looking for ways to persuade the 

Iranians to release them. We also are in touch with the international partners who have relations with Iran, those that go to 

Iran. I travel a lot in the region, for example, and this is near the 

33

top of my agenda list when I see people who I know are going to 

Iran is you need to make it absolutely clear to the Iranians that 

this is essential for us that these two hikers get home. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. I thank you, and my time has expired. I recognize the ranking member Mr. Ackerman for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have tried to get 

you to say regime change, something that you would not be unhappy with from the tone of your explicit remarks. And the administration doesn’t want to get too far forward in its skis, and despite 

the fact that we have tried everything short of waterboarding and 

we may want to try that later. 

Mr. CHABOT. We agree once again. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Come to our office. 

Mr. CHABOT. That was just Tweeted, Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I will move off of that, but getting it done, you 

don’t have to say the words I supposed to get it done. In my opening statement I referenced a list of things that I thought we should 

be doing now that would more than ratchet up the pressure. It 

would be hopefully to deal a more crushing blow to the regime, encouraging its abdication. 

What is wrong with those suggestions and why haven’t we done 

that? I know we have had some sanctions on some individuals from 

within the Syrian leadership, but why aren’t we ending all bilateral 

trade? Why aren’t we barring all the Syrian banks from our U.S. 

financial system? And why aren’t we freezing the assets of Syria, 

all of the assets of Syria? And why aren’t we imposing a travel ban 

on all of their government officials? 

You can do them one at a time if you like. And wouldn’t that be 

helpful in getting the thing done without us saying the unthinkable? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Congressman Ackerman, thanks for the 

question. Part of what we are—because we are looking at exactly 

these things you are looking at. I mean we start from the reality 

that Syria is one of the most sanctioned countries in the world 

when it comes to trade and relations with the United States. Trade 

between the United States is quite low. It consists of only five 

areas, food, medicine, medical supplies, some civil aviation safety 

parts and communications equipment. The communications 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Let’s go straight to oil imports. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Okay. Good question. We had a long discussion today 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And financial institutions. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. We had a long discussion today with our 

European colleagues because what we are trying to do is to move 

together with our European colleagues. You know, if we do oil and 

gas sanctions ourselves we don’t have oil and gas trade with the 

Syrians it is not going to amount to a whole lot. 

There are, you know, questions about how much it hurts the Syrian people versus hurts the Syrian regime is an ongoing discussion, 

but we are—what we are trying to do it to work multilaterally so 

that we and some of our other—and some of our other partners in 

Europe and elsewhere are taking the same steps in tandem because we will have a much greater impact to do this together. 

34

It goes back to the fact that Syria has very few friends left, so 

other countries are looking at doing some of the same things that 

we are doing now. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. When can we—when can we see a recommendation to freeze all the assets? Or would you prefer that we send that 

over to you? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Well, I mean, we welcome all tools we can 

have to try to put pressure on this regime, you know, leaving some 

flexibility with—in the—leaving the flexibility in the President’s 

hand for foreign policy. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. These are—these are tools that you have. I mean 

you don’t have to go ‘‘Mother may I?’’

Ambassador FELTMAN. No, we are—as I say, we start from the 

fact that it is a heavily sanctioned country already so a lot of the 

stuff that the Europeans are doing now we did years ago because 

of the terrorist support. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Why——

Ambassador FELTMAN. There are a lot of——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Let’s get precise. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. We have——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Why don’t we freeze all of the Syrian assets in 

the United States tomorrow and all bilateral trade with possibly 

the humanitarian stuff exempted? And why don’t we ban all travel? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. And we are looking at a wide variety of 

tools——

Mr. ACKERMAN. How long are we going to look? 

Ambassador FELTMAN [continuing]. Congressman Ackerman. You 

know, we are—we are rolling out different sanctions, different designations all the time on Syria. But again, to the extent that we 

do this in partnership with others, that we take parallel steps it 

is going to have a far, far greater impact because there is just not 

that much trade between the United States and Syria. We shut it 

all off tomorrow, it will have——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, but it will have—it will have some impact. 

Ambassador FELTMAN [continuing]. It won’t make that much of 

a difference. 

Mr. ACKERMAN [continuing]. If we do it, whether we do it together with them or not. And if we do it maybe they will do it. Why 

not start? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Well, I think we have started. And the 

fact that we have designated 27 individuals and entities since this 

all started——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Are you going to freeze all the Syrian assets in 

the United States any time soon? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. You know, we are looking at the steps to 

take, Congressman. That is all I can say. You know, we are constantly looking at more and more designations as appropriate tools 

to pressure——

Mr. ACKERMAN. You are viewing this as a peep show. You are 

looking at this. You are looking at that, and people are dying. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Yes, I guess I would just respectfully disagree with the fact that we are sounding inactive. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I am not saying you are inactive. I am saying 

you are not as effective as you should be, or could be, or have to 

35

be, or are morally obligated to be. We should be doing—if you don’t 

want to say the magic words I understand that. I really don’t, but 

I will say that I understand that. But I don’t understand why you 

are not using all the tools at your disposal besides looking at them. 

Mr. CHABOT. And the gentleman’s time has expired, but I don’t 

know if the gentleman want to answer the question or——

Mr. POSNER. You know, Congressman, I listened carefully to your 

list and we will go back and look at each of the things you raise. 

And I will make a commitment that we are going have the conversation about each of them and see if—what more we can do. As 

Jeff said, as Assistant Secretary Feltman said, you know, virtually 

every senior Syrian official has now subject to sanctions and so you 

are suggesting there are other things we can do. We will look at 

them and see if there are ways to ratchet it up. 

Mr. CHABOT. The time has expired. The gentleman from California Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I would just like to note that I am as 

frustrated by this interview as Mr. Ackerman. Let me just—I am 

just hearing these words, ‘‘We are looking and we are talking.’’ I 

just hear that repeated over and over again. ‘‘We are looking and 

we are talking.’’

And let me note there is a difference between being proactive 

and being reactive, and especially if reactive means that you are 

looking and talking that doesn’t come up with of the kind of movement in the direction that I believe will make this a peaceful and 

free world. 

One thing, one note about our last discussion a few moments ago, 

let me just state for the record that the representatives of the 

United Nations High Commission on Refugees to the United 

States, Vincent Cochetel was in my office 2 weeks ago and specifically told me that the terrorist designation by the United States of 

the people of Camp Ashraf was the major stumbling block in getting these people relocated. 

And so let me—that’s on the record for you now and you can try 

to go around it each way. You are sitting on a solution. Now, I take 

it that neither one of you gentlemen have made the decision, but 

whoever has made the decision that we are not going to take them 

off the terrorist list and probably, as I say, due to whoever that 

person is wanting to curry some kind of favor with the mullah dictatorship, is playing with the lives of unarmed people who have already gone through a massacre. 

And I hope you go back to the State Department and just let 

them know if there is another massacre it is you guys who are responsible for the death of these unarmed people because we are 

not—something as easy as taking them off of the—I mean it is 

easier to take them off the terrorist list than it is to freeze all the 

assets of Syrians in the United States for Pete’s sakes. 

This is something you can do and you are not doing it. 

Unknown. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Posner, are you—do you believe in a 

moral equivalency between the United States and, let’s say, Communist China? 

Mr. POSNER. My view is, and I am quite involved in a set of conversations with the Chinese authorities about prison conditions, 

36

about recent arrests that have happened since the beginning of the 

year, about restrictions on religious freedom, about a whole range 

of problems relating to treatment of workers. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. I found that during the Cold War that 

when we were discussing the very things you are talking about——

Mr. POSNER. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. That it undermined our progress 

when we tried to find something that we could hold up as an example of where we are actually just as bad over in this area. And I 

have a quote from you in a briefing that says that you have 

brought up the Arizona immigration law early and often. You said 

it was brought up early and often with the Chinese and that there 

was a troubling trend in our society that it was an indication of 

discrimination and potential discrimination. 

Do you—by the way, do the Chinese just permit to come into 

their society illegally and don’t kick them out? 

Mr. POSNER. Let me respond to that. That was a year ago when 

we——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Mr. POSNER [continuing]. Did that bilateral discussion on human 

rights. The issue of Arizona was raised not on the merits. It was 

raised to say by a range of our Government officials, including a 

Supreme Court judge, that when we have a controversial issue like 

immigration, we debate it openly. People file lawsuits. Lawyers 

aren’t disbarred for that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, you designated it as a troubling trend 

of our society and it deals with issues of discrimination and potential discrimination. You think that trying to maintain border controls and if we don’t preventing people from pouring into our country is a violation of their human rights? 

Mr. POSNER. No, it is a controversial issue but it is one that I 

am very proud of the fact that we debate openly. Newspapers report on it. Editorial writers speak their mind, and people don’t go 

to jail for that. And that we were making the contrast with what 

happens in China where dissidents, people who criticize the government, are punished for their activities. 

That was the point of that discussion. We never got into the details or the merits of our internal debate about that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, it wasn’t one discussion. Apparently 

you suggested that you had brought it up ‘‘early and often,’’ so we 

are not talking about one discussion. 

Mr. POSNER. No. It was raised by several people. We did not 

have a substantive discussion of that subject. I am a believe, Congressman, that the United States is and has always been a leader 

in the field of human rights. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. that is correct. 

Mr. POSNER. We believe in universal human rights. We helped 

to create the framework at the United Nations of the Universal 

Declaration. We lead by example. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. POSNER. And so I am proud to represent this county. I am 

proud to be part of a government that takes these things seriously. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But that does not include——

Mr. POSNER. And I will continue to do that. 

37

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But you weren’t putting——

Mr. CHABOT. And the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would ask for 1 additional minute? 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In that and by the way, obviously I agree 

with that statement and obviously that is something we all agree 

on, but are you putting the right to go into another country illegally and reside there and receive all the benefits of the citizens 

of that country, is that a human right? 

Mr. POSNER. No, every country has the obligation and the commitment to enforce its borders. How we treat people, how a country 

treats immigrants is a subject that we could have a whole hearing 

on. But I have no doubt that there is an obligation of every country 

to have border control. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, yeah, we are not talking about immigrants now. We are talking about illegal immigrants. 

Mr. POSNER. I understand. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is a big difference. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Certainly. I have 20 seconds—15. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Could we extend that to another minute? 

Mr. CHABOT. Well, the gentleman——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I request another 1 minute. 

Mr. CHABOT [continuing]. Receives another minute and he yields 

to the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly do. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. I wasn’t sure which you were referring to of illegal immigrants in a country. Was that the Mexicans 

in Arizona or the Iranians in Iraq? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would suggest that in both cases you have 

a situation, and I recognize there is no disagreement that I have 

with these gentlemen that Iraq has a right to control their territory 

with people in it. They do not have a right to shoot people down 

and we do—are not shooting people down. And——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Amen. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. We do not prevent—designate 

those people in our country with a specific designation that permits 

them—prevents them from going home. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Let me try to—let me try to figure out our position here. The Mujahidin I believe was declared—was listed I think 

under the Clinton administration at the printed reports say under 

the suggestion of the Iranians at the time who we were trying to 

move into whatever position. The designation was continued 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, the gentleman is granted another minute if he——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, he——

Mr. CHABOT. You can object. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I was going to say this will be the—the chair 

would tend to not give an additional minute, but you have got an 

additional minute. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. The question is if they were delisted 

on the—during the Obama administration, which I hear you asking 

38

for, if they were delisted from the terrorist list that would present 

the opportunity of absorbing them in other countries. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. That would—that would facilitate——

Mr. ACKERMAN [continuing]. Including our——

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. That would facilitate them——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman——

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. With a broader range of places 

to go, yes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman be willing to establish a 

quota for a reasonable number to come to the United States? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. Yes. Yes, I think that we have—that we 

have in our history taken in people who are running from tyranny 

and escaping injustice and that is different than having a mass migration into our society 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Let me—let me——

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. For people who are coming here 

for economic reasons. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The Secretaries, would these people be considered refugees because they could not go back to Iran because Iran 

was the one who considers them terrorists? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s has expired. If you can wrap it up 

in 10 seconds that is fine. The gentleman from Nebraska is waiting 

so you want to say something in 10 seconds? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. it is a very complicated subject, but right 

now our own Immigration and Naturalization Act, the INA, would 

pose complications, even if there was no FTO designation any 

longer because of people who have received paramilitary training 

from what was considered a foreign terrorist organization at the 

time. So it is a very complicated issue. I am happy to talk more 

about it when we have time. 

Mr. CHABOT. And the gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Ambassador, Mr. Secretary, thank you 

for coming today. I am sorry I didn’t have the benefit of your earlier testimony. Let us go back to the Syria question. Is there hesitancy on the part of the administration to further pressure Syria? 

Are you out of options? The U.N. Security Council you have proposed a condemnation there, but you have run into obstacles. 

Are you using leverage on those, particularly the Russians and 

the Chinese to overcome those obstacles? That is my first question 

if we can take a minute on that I will move to some others. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. First, Congressman Fortenberry, thanks a 

lot of coming to Michael Corbin’s swearing in the other day. It was 

a real honor to have you there. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. It was a great privilege to be invited. Thank 

you for welcoming me, yes. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. There are a number of options that we 

have taken. There are more options that we are looking at there 

is a lot of diplomacy under way. The, you know, as I said, we started off with Syria being one of the sanctioned countries on the planet in terms of the United States so we started off with a really high 

level of sanctions already in place, very little bilateral trade, a lot 

39

of Syrian regime figures already sanctioned for their outrageous interference in Lebanon for the support of terrorism, et cetera. 

What we have done since then is we passed executive orders that 

have allowed us already to designate 27 different individuals and 

entities. We are looking at more now. We will—that list will expand. It is not exhaustive. 

Included in that 27 it is really important are three Iranian entities, Iranian entities who are helping Bashar al-Assad kill, torture, 

arrest, maim his own people. And this highlights for the world 

that, you know, what Iran is doing inside Syria, holding Iran accountable for it as well, and it has gotten a lot of notice. 

We also have prevented Syria from taking a seat on the Human 

Rights Council in Geneva. Syria should have never even been considered given it record, but it was considered. We were able to diplomatically prevent them from getting on the Council. We were also 

able to get the Council to pass two resolutions condemning Syrian 

behavior. And also calling for an investigative mission into Syria 

which so far the Syrian regime has not taken. 

But these things all are noticed diplomatically. They are noticed 

inside Syria. What we are doing is we are providing the accountability that the Syrian people are demanding of their own government that the Syrian Government is not doing. I travel a lot and 

I am also in touch with all of Syria’s neighbors. I tell you, Syria 

really has no friends left, and this is important. 

It reinforces this analysis that basically Bashar is losing. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. How deep is his trouble? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. I think—I analyze that he can’t win this. 

He cracks down more he enrages the public more. He pulls back, 

which is what—he should pull back and stop the killing and then 

the momentum of the demonstrations grow. He pulls his own 

friend that he can draw on is Iran. He pulls Iran in to help him 

with technical support, with material, with advisors, with financial 

support, that enrages the street. 

There is an anti-Iranian, anti-Hezbollah flavor to these demonstrations so his one tool makes, in fact, his problem worse. He 

is left with only three friends, Hezbollah, a great friend to have, 

Iran and then the crazy Lebanese politician Michel Aoun who for 

some reason has allied himself with Bashar al-Assad. That is not 

a whole lot of friends left to support you. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Let us turn—thank you. Let us turn quickly 

to Iran. Could you assess the green movement’s chances? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. The Green Movement has been, you 

know, suppressed brutally by the Iranian regime and it is still 

there below the surface. It is a diffuse organization. It does not 

have—it is two main symbolic leaders have been under house arrest for months, but it is still there. And we are trying to create 

the political space in which people can communicate with each 

other, where they are able to get the tools to evade the Internet 

censors in there. 

They are not all—let us not kid ourselves. These people are not 

all in love with the United States or United States foreign policy, 

so we are not trying to back the Green Movement per se. We are 

trying to back the accountability they demand from the governVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:32 Oct 27, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\MESA\072711\67602 HFA PsN: SHIRL
40

ment, the political space they need to operate, the communications 

tools they need to be effective. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, if I could inject that, something right 

there, it is clear that the Iranian people have been throughout 

their history very attentive to the concept of justice. And if we can 

ask for a more moderate form of government that actually does justice for its people I think that is in the interest of global stability 

and that may be the best outcome we can hope for. 

But at the same time is this in any way related to the conflict 

or the potential conflict between the Supreme Leader and 

Ahmadinejad that has arisen, at least in press reports, the internal 

pressures, the internal dynamics of that? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. the internal conflict is real. You know, 

the press reports, you know, reflect what we understand to be the 

situation. You know, we don’t have an Embassy there so we rely 

on a lot of different information to analyze, but the internal conflict 

is there. But we don’t think that the internal conflict by itself poses 

any real threat to the regime at this point. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Is it related to the internal pressures from 

the Green Movement and new political space potentially developing 

or unrelated? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. You know, there could be connections but 

it is largely related to power between the——

Mr. FORTENBERRY. All right. 

Ambassador FELTMAN [continuing]. Senior guys. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, and the final 

questioner probably unless somebody else shows up, is the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was in a financial 

services hearing and was not able to come in order to listen to your 

testimony. I would like to ask you a question that doesn’t deal with 

Syria or Iran but it is a vital part of Mid East and just get your 

thoughts. 

Saudi Arabia and UAE sent troops into Bahrain to buttress the 

Sunni king, and reports of what is going on in Bahrain haven’t 

really reached us, but there is a very serious issue as to the stability of Bahrain. And of course that is where the Navy is, the U.S. 

5th Fleet is anchored. 

And I would just like your dialogue on where you think we are 

going to go on Bahrain? And I know it is off the topic, but I know 

that both of you are respected in the fields of the entire Middle 

East. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Congressman, thanks for the question. 

You raise a very important topic that is related to our relationships 

in the Gulf more generally. I have been to Bahrain eight times 

since February. My colleague, Assistant Secretary Posner was 

there in I believe June? So we—and this shows both the depth of 

the partnership we have with Bahrain and the level of concern we 

have with some of the developments that have taken place there. 

We have stressed the need for the type of transparent steps toward reconciliation that will allow Bahrainis to feel that, you know, 

that the governing structures are reflecting, in fact, their aspirations for their future. 

41

There was, you know, a terrible situation in February and 

March. I happened to be there, in fact, when the Saudi troops that 

you mentioned came across the causeway from Saudi Arabia into 

Bahrain. It was a terrible situation at the time where you basically 

had the extremists on all sides setting the agenda, extremists on 

the Sunni side, extremists on the opposition side, hardliners in the 

government. 

What is happening now is you are seeing the moderate voices 

start to come out again, the moderate voices that represent the 

center in Bahrain. There have been some important steps that the 

king has taken in order to try to establish a positive vision of Bahrain going forward. There has been a commission of inquiry set up 

to look into what happened back in February and March. 

This has the sponsorship of the king. It has respected international jurists. It has a broad mandate to look into what happened. To the extent that this commission operates with transparency and can bring some accountability, I think that the Bahrainis themselves will feel assured about their future. 

The Ministry of Labor is looking at and has been announcing 

some job reinstatements of people that were determined to have 

been wrongly dismissed from their jobs. We encourage these sorts 

of steps going forward. So we are encouraging basically the moderate voices to stand up, who represent the majority, what we understand the majority of Bahrainis to take these sorts of reconciliatory steps to put the events of February and March behind us. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Are you satisfied with any progress that you may 

be observing as a result of that? 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Yes, I would say that in all honesty that, 

you know, the record is mixed. That there have been positive announcements, positive steps like the commission of inquiry is extremely important. The transfer of court cases from security courts 

to civilian courts is a very positive—is a very positive move. 

There have been people released from detention. There is more 

that needs to be done. There was a national dialogue to look at reform issues. We were disappointed that the major opposition party 

pulled out of that national dialogue. We think that all parties 

should be participating in a genuine dialogue about Bahrain’s future. 

We have a strong partnership with Bahrain. We will continue to 

be working with all parties involved——

Mr. MANZULLO. Let me—let me interrupt you because I would 

like to get Secretary Posner’s take. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Mr. POSNER. Thank you. I share Jeff’s assessment. I do—I am 

concerned about continued detentions, a number, perhaps several 

hundred people are still detained without charge. We continue to 

press on that. I am concerned about the dismissals, but as Secretary Feltman said, they have begun to reintegrate those people 

back to their jobs. 

I think we are at a critical place right now and again, in contrast 

to the countries we have been talking about, there is a strong relationship with Bahrain. We do have a very open dialogue, and I 

think it is important for us both to keep re-emphasizing the 

42

strength of the partnership and at the same time have an honest 

discussion about the need for general reconciliation and for moving 

forward in a way that does really allow all segments of that society 

to participate in the political life of that country. 

So this is a critical moment and I am glad that you are paying 

attention to it. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, if I could have just another 

minute? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman, without objection, is recognized for 

an additional minute. 

Mr. MANZULLO. I don’t recall the response, if any, that the U.S. 

Government gave when Saudi Arabia and UAE sent troops in. 

Ambassador FELTMAN. Secretary Clinton was in Cairo at the 

time when those troops went in. and as I said, I was actually in 

Bahrain at the time and she made a very strong statement that got 

the notice of the Saudis and the Emiratis. But there is a real—as 

Secretary Posner said, there is a real distinction here which is that 

not only do we have a strong relationship with the government 

itself but we have a head of state who is trying to take steps to 

heal the divisions, to avoid a repetition of what happened in February and March. 

We don’t see the same thing happening in Syria and in Iran. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. the gentleman’s time has expired. We want 

to thank the panelists this afternoon for answering our questions, 

sometimes to our satisfaction and sometimes not, but that is not 

that unusual in this committee and many committees around this 

place. 

But obviously very important issues. Thank you for dealing with 

them. And all members will have 5 days to submit reports for the 

record, and if there is no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(43)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

44

f


67602n.eps
45

Æ


67602m.eps