U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

96–048PDF 2015

IMPLICATIONS OF A NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH

IRAN (PART IV)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 9, 2015

Serial No. 114–103

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

General Chuck Wald, USAF, Retired (former Deputy Commander, U.S. European Command) ................................................................................................... 5

Admiral William Fallon, USN, Retired (former Commander, U.S. Central 

Command) ............................................................................................................. 13

Vice Admiral John Bird, USN, Retired (former Commander, U.S. Seventh 

Fleet) ..................................................................................................................... 18

Mr. Leon Wieseltier, Isaiah Berlin Senior Fellow in Culture and Policy, Foreign Policy and Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution ..................... 24

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

General Chuck Wald, USAF, Retired: Prepared statement ................................. 7

Admiral William Fallon, USN, Retired: Prepared statement .............................. 16

Vice Admiral John Bird, USN, Retired: Prepared statement .............................. 20

Mr. Leon Wieseltier: Prepared statement ............................................................. 28

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 62

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 63

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

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 65

(1)

IMPLICATIONS OF A NUCLEAR AGREEMENT 

WITH IRAN (PART IV) 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. I will ask everyone to take their seats at this time. This hearing is on implications of a nuclear agreement with Iran. This morning, the committee continues to examine the administration’s agreement. To 

help further assess this deal we are joined by several retired officers, two admirals and a general, who served their country with 

distinction, and we have a noted thinker with us on the region. 

And this, by the way, is I think the 30th hearing that we have 

held on this issue, 30th hearing or briefing, since these negotiations began. I appreciate the commitment that all the members 

have made to analyze what is a very complex issue here, as the 

House gets set for a vote this week. I would like to recognize Ranking Member Engel for his partnership as we have approached the 

issue in a bipartisan way throughout these hearings. 

Unfortunately, in my view, it is quite clear that this agreement 

makes Iran stronger at the end of the day. I say that because the 

billions of dollars here, some $100 billion provided in immediate 

sanctions relief, is just a down payment, as Iran is guaranteed a 

reconnection to the global economy. The strangle on its banks and 

businesses, the money that has been held in escrow, will now be 

returned to the regime. It will be returned in the way of a system 

in Iran where the IRGC and the Quds Forces own many of the 

major businesses in the country. 

So it is not just unlocking this money from escrow into the accounts of senior IRGC leaders, clerics, and the Ayatollah himself, 

who increasingly controls the businesses in Iran. It is also putting 

into motion what comes next in terms of future deals, where those 

individuals are going to be the key decisionmakers. They are the 

ones that are going to be empowered under this agreement. 

Politically, of course, that means it solidifies the Supreme Leader’s grip on power. That is why he did the deal, to keep his revolution intact. As we said early on, the right kind of pressure on Iran 

would give that Ayatollah a choice between real compromise on his 

nuclear program or economic collapse, but that legislation that we 

2

passed to put on those additional sanctions was blocked in the Senate. 

So militarily, in a few short years—if they wait that long—Iran 

is free to build up its tanks, its fighter jets, its intercontinental ballistic missiles. Its proxies in the region can continue to wreak havoc 

and back terrorism. Indeed, Iran’s elite Quds Force has transferred 

funds to Hamas to rebuild a network of tunnels from Gaza to attack Israel. 

Myself and Ranking Member Engel have been in those tunnels. 

I must tell you, reading the account in The Journal of the fact that 

Israel is now going to face a situation where the Quds Forces and 

the Iranian regime are going to not only rebuild the terror tunnels, 

but have also made the commitment to transfer the rockets to replenish the inventory, and on top of that, the commitment now, the 

discussion on the part of Iran to transfer the precision-guided 

weapons so that Hezbollah will have the opportunity to unleash 

what used to be an inventory of 10,000 rockets and missiles. When 

I was there, in Haifa, in 2006, and those rockets were slamming 

into the city, and there were 600 people in the trauma hospital, 

there was an inventory of 10,000. Now, thanks to Iran, there is an 

inventory of over 80,000 of these. 

What is it that Iran seeks to do? It needs the hard currency to 

transfer that capability for GPS guidance for a system that will 

allow the targeting of those rockets and missiles so that individual 

targets, individual buildings, the airport, and so forth, can be hit 

inside Israel. That is what we are talking about when we say that 

it is going to unleash $100 billion in capital that is held right now. 

Then, Iran is a few steps away from a nuclear weapons program 

on an industrial scale. It will take a few years, but at the end of 

that process, as the President has detailed, Iran will be a step 

away from that. 

As Iran grows stronger across the board, the United States will 

be weaker to respond. By removing economic sanctions, the President is withdrawing one of our most successful, peaceful tools for 

confronting the Iranian regime. As international investment pours 

into Iran, there is going to be tremendous political pressure to not 

upset that apple cart—to keep the agreement going at all costs, no 

matter what Iranian cheating might be found. Why do I think 

that? Because we have already seen General Soleimani of the Quds 

Force take his trek, his trip into Russia to negotiate. We have already seen the announcement of the Fateh 313 rocket, a missile 

with a range of over 300 miles. That was presented a few weeks 

ago. 

Is anyone speaking out about arms violations with respect to 

transfer of these types of weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah? No, 

no, because they don’t want to upset the apple cart. Indeed, the administration’s pressure—there is a lot of pressure on the IAEA, 

some of that came from the administration—and that got us a deal 

with the Iranians being able to self-inspect a key military site, setting a dangerous precedent, frankly, for the future. Because when 

you set that standard for self-inspections, that becomes the precedent that everybody else wants, including the Iranians the next 

time they are challenged on the suspicion of some particular military site where they might be doing work. And even if we wanted 

3

to hit back against Iran’s cheating, ‘‘snapping back’’ sanctions, I 

think, under these conditions, especially with the Iranians having 

a vote on the seven-member consortium of countries that are going 

to determine this, China having a vote, Russia having a vote, they 

only have to pick off one more European country that they are 

doing business with in order to make it very, very difficult for us 

to have ‘‘snapback.’’

As a group of 200 retired generals and admirals recently concluded,

‘‘This agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable, and introduce 

new threats to American interests, as well as our allies. In our 

professional opinion, far from being an alternative to war, the 

[agreement] makes it likely that the war the Iranian regime 

has waged against us since 1979 will continue, with far higher 

risks to our national security interests.’’

Are the temporary restraints on Iran’s nuclear program under 

this agreement worth that cost? President Obama is clearly betting 

that it is—that Iran will change enough over a short 10 to 15 years 

to be trusted with what by then will be internationally endorsed 

bomb-making technology on an industrial scale. 

But as we will hear today, that is a bet against history. As one 

witness recently wrote, Iran’s enduring hostility toward us isn’t ‘‘an 

accident of historical inertia. ‘‘But a choice by Iran—a choice based 

upon a world view that was founded in large measure on a fiery, 

theological anti-Americanism, an officially sanctioned and officially 

disseminated view of Americanism as satanism.’’ That is why we 

are used to hearing that rhetoric from the Ayatollah that Israel is 

the little Satan and the United States is the great Satan. 

So I now turn to the ranking member, Mr. Eliot Engel of New 

York, for any opening comments he may have. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today’s hearing. 

When all is said and done with the Iran deal, I don’t think anyone 

will accuse this committee of skimping on our due diligence. We 

have heard from administration officials and experts from across 

the spectrum. So thank you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman, 

and thoroughness on this issue. 

To our witnesses, welcome to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I 

look forward to your testimony. 

I certainly respect everyone’s opinions, even though they may differ from mine, but as I announced a month ago, I cannot support 

the Iran nuclear deal. I have laid out the concerns that led me to 

that decision, and I will quickly recap. 

First of all, I am not persuaded that this deal will give IAEA inspectors the access they need to do their jobs. Between potentially 

lengthy delays and confusion over inspecting the Parchin military 

base, this deal leaves too many loopholes for the Iranians to slip 

through. Unfettered access for inspectors is the only way we can 

be sure Iran stops its work toward a nuclear weapon, and this deal 

does not provide unfettered access. 

Secondly, I believe the deal gives away too much when it comes 

to sanctions on advanced conventional weapon and ballistic missile 

development. As far as I knew, these issues weren’t even on the 

4

table, yet with this deal, a few years down the road Iran could be 

buying advanced weapons and building missiles and still be fully 

compliant with its obligations. And even if Iran were to violate 

these provisions early, that violation wouldn’t trigger a snapback 

of economic sanctions. 

Which brings me to another concern: What will Iran’s leaders do 

when they again have access to the billions and billions of dollars 

currently frozen by international sanctions? Even with the sanctions in place, Iran has been the world’s largest state sponsor of 

terrorism. When these new resources pour into Iran, I have no 

doubt it will mean payday for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other extremist groups around the world. The intentions are pretty clear of 

leaders who chant ‘‘Death to America’’ and ‘‘Death to Israel’’ just 

days after concluding an agreement. 

And lastly and fundamentally, 15 years from now, this deal allows Iran to produce highly enriched weapons-grade uranium without any restriction. This deal legitimizes Iran as a nuclear threshold state in the year 2030; gives Iran’s leaders the green light to 

build a stockpile of nuclear fuel. If they pursue that course, and I 

believe they will, it could trigger a nuclear arms race across the region. Even a decade-and-a-half away, that is a risk we cannot take. 

Those are my chief concerns, and that is why I can’t support this 

deal. But I don’t think anyone here would disagree that it is going 

to be very difficult to stop this deal from being implemented. So I 

think it is important for us to start considering, what are the next 

steps if and when this deal goes through? What will we need to ensure the security of Israel and our other friends and allies in the 

region, including the Sunni Gulf states? What steps can be taken 

to prevent Iran’s newfound wealth from ending up in terrorist 

hands? 

I know we will hear a lot today from witnesses and my colleagues that this is not the deal we hoped for, and I agree. I do 

believe this committee now has a responsibility to look ahead and 

think strategically about what comes next. So I look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses, Mr. Chairman. I thank you again, and 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. And this morning——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would the ranking member yield before he yields 

back his time? 

Mr. ROYCE. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

Given the fact that both the chairman and the ranking member 

have talked about their concerns about the deal, just for the record, 

there are a number of us who actually have a different opinion. I 

believe this is a vigorous and enforceable agreement. I believe it is 

the only path to peace. I believe it rolls back the nuclear capability 

of Iran for a substantial period of time that gives us time to make 

sure we have an even more long-lasting agreement. 

I believe it is enforceable. I believe it is verifiable. I believe it is 

a robust agreement. I believe it is one we don’t need to apologize 

for. And the choice is stark. They are within 2 to 3 months of developing a bomb or 15 years. I choose the latter enthusiastically. 

And I thank the ranking member for his courtesy and the chairman. 

5

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. 

This morning we are pleased to be a joined by a distinguished 

panel with a range of views before the committee. 

General Chuck Wald served as the former Deputy Commander of 

the U.S. European Command, overseeing all U.S. forces operating 

across 91 countries in Europe, Africa, Russia, parts of Asia and the 

Middle East, and most of the Atlantic Ocean. 

Admiral William Fallon served as the former Commander of the 

U.S. Central Command, where he directed all U.S. military operations in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Horn of Africa. 

Vice Admiral John Bird served in a variety of positions, including 

as the former Commander of the Seventh Fleet and as the Director 

of Navy Staff. 

Mr. Leon Wieseltier is the Isaiah Berlin Senior Fellow in Culture 

and Policy at the Brookings Institution. He is a senior editor and 

critic at The Atlantic, for which he recently wrote an article titled 

‘‘The Iran Deal and the Rut of History.’’

And so without objection, the witnesses’ full prepared statements 

will be made part of the record. Members will have 5 calendar days 

to submit statements and questions and any extraneous material 

for the record. 

And, General Wald, I would ask you if you could please summarize your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL CHUCK WALD, USAF, RETIRED 

(FORMER DEPUTY COMMANDER, U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND) 

General WALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Engel, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the implications of the 

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. 

I served in the Air Force as a pilot and air commander for over 

three decades. I have commanded air operations in Bosnia and Afghanistan, and I am intimately familiar with the U.S. allies and 

adversaries in the Middle East, as well as the capabilities the U.S. 

military uses to protect one and deter and defeat the other. 

Two weeks ago, JINSA’s Gemunder Center for Defense and 

Strategy released a report from its new Iran Strategy Council, 

which I co-chaired, in which Vice Admiral Bird is also a member, 

analyzing the Iran deal’s potentially grave repercussions. Our findings are straightforward. JCPOA does not reduce the need for a robust military presence in the Middle East, nor does it preclude the 

possibility of a military confrontation with Iran. Instead, it creates 

a much more difficult strategic environment for the United States 

to operate in over the next 15 years, if not longer. 

Let me explain how we came to that conclusion. First, the deal 

does not prevent a nuclear Iran. It merely kicks the centrifuge 

issue down the road for 15 years when the agreement’s major nuclear restrictions lapse. At that point, according to President 

Obama, Iran will have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium 

fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have 

shrunk almost down to zero. Should Tehran decide to sprint for nuclear weapons capability, something that it can do in weeks, if not 

days, U.S. options for preventing a nuclear Iran will be extremely 

limited. 

6

Second, Iran can still become a nuclear threshold power. This 

does not remove the need to maintain a long-term credible military 

option against Iran’s nuclear program. This is why President 

Obama has also cautioned that if 15 or 20 years from now Iran 

tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures the United States will have 

the same options available to stop weapons programs as we have 

today, including, if necessary, military options. 

Third, the deal actually increases the need for the United States 

to project power in the region so to protect its interests and allies 

from potential Iranian interference. Vice Admiral Bird will testify, 

JCPOA grants Iran access to resources and technology with which 

to modernize its Armed Forces and continue to pursue the pursuit 

of hegemonic and destabilizing activities in the Middle East. 

This leads to the question: If continued or increased U.S. military 

presence in the Middle East will be required under this deal, what 

will the strategic environment that we will be operating look like? 

I believe two main dynamics will shape the ability of the United 

States military to project power and operate in the Middle East. 

First, the decline in U.S. military capabilities, in strength, force 

structure, readiness, and modernization, that is already happening 

and will only get worse if sequestration, the decades of cuts to the 

defense budget, are allowed to continue for the remaining 6 years. 

Second, the erosion of U.S. credibility in the eyes of our Middle 

Eastern allies as a result of our accepting a deal that they view as 

fundamentally dangerous. 

Combined, these dynamics mean the United States may still 

have the military option when JCPOA expires, but it will face a far 

more dangerous and difficult one than it is today. In sum, this deal 

creates a strategic environment in which Iran can pursue nuclear 

weapons capability at a much lower level of risk. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of General Wald follows:]

7


96048a-1.eps
8


96048a-2.eps
9


96048a-3.eps
10


96048a-4.eps
11


96048a-5.eps
12


96048a-6.eps
13

Chairman ROYCE. Admiral Fallon. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL WILLIAM FALLON, USN, RETIRED 

(FORMER COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND) 

Admiral FALLON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Engel, members 

of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to address this 

distinguished body and offer my perspective on this nuclear arrangement with Iran and related questions. 

I think this is an important issue because Iran has accumulated 

a very large quantity of enriched uranium and is, by many accounts, near the threshold of nuclear weapons capability. This 

emerging capacity, when coupled with a virulent anti-Western 

rhetoric and a long record of malign activities, presents a very real 

threat to U.S. interests. 

Iranian bad behavior abroad, spearheaded by the IRGC Quds 

Force, and executed mainly by their proxies, has fomented regional 

instability and attacked U.S. personnel and interests around the 

world, actions which I witnessed firsthand in Lebanon in the early 

1980s and in Iraq and Afghanistan when I was Commander of U.S. 

CENTCOM in the last decade. I am under no illusions regarding 

Iranian Government behavior since the Islamic revolution, and I 

believe that some elements in that country would be very pleased 

to posess nuclear weapons. 

It is precisely this near-term potential to achieve nuclear weapons capability that I believe presents the most serious challenge 

with Iran. Notwithstanding many grievances and intolerable activity by the Iranian agents in places around the world, the most 

pressing issue for America, Israel, and our Middle Eastern allies is 

the very real possibility that Iran could soon acquire a nuclear 

weapon. 

To address this threat, representatives of the international community have been negotiating for many months with one key objective: To stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The resulting 

joint plan, in my opinion, offers a good chance to do just that and 

is far superior to the status quo alternative which would leave Iran 

with a massive stockpile of enriched uranium, no firsthand scrutiny 

of ongoing related activities, and if this deal is rejected, new motivation to accelerate their efforts. 

I have scrutinized this agreement very carefully and I support it 

with reservations and I recommend your approval of the plan. 

Frankly, I was surprised but pleased that so many diverse interests represented in the negotiations could actually coalesce an 

agreement on a document that on balance I think is a reasonable 

way forward. 

But I want to make perfectly clear about the most important reality: Neither we, nor the Iranians, really trust each other to actualize the features of this deal, and that is very important to keep 

in mind as we go forward. 

A positive aspect of this arrangement is that after more than 36 

years of open hostility and a lack of substantive discussion on any 

issue, the two sides came together and agreed a way ahead of utmost importance. The negative is the devil in the detail: The implementation is going to require close scrutiny and verification. I 

think the most important strength of the deal is the broad interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:04 Nov 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\090915\96048 SHIRL
14

national agreement and the priority of stopping Iran’s nuclear 

weapons. 

There are many points you can read in my testimony that I think 

effectively block the uranium path to a weapon. By sabotaging the 

Arak heavy water reactor, it basically sets back the plutonium option for a substantial amount of time. There are other issues that 

have been addressed variously and will be addressed, I think, by 

the IAEA. You can have your own opinions about those. 

I think that the biggest weakness of the agreement is that there 

doesn’t appear to be any practically effective way to monitor very 

small-scale Iranian misbehavior should they choose to continue or 

resume it. Likewise, the full resolution of the PMD suspicions is 

really unlikely because it would probably depend on Iranian admission of past violations of the NPT and the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. And historically, the IAEA has not been seen 

as the most aggressive entity in pursuing scofflaws. 

Regarding long-term implications of the agreement on regional 

stability, I think there is good potential for positive development. 

The most important issue, the imminent threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, has forestalled easing the high anxiety that exists in 

the region and with Israel. Suspension of sanctions will increase 

economic activity and personal travel, boosting interaction with the 

Iranian population, resulting in pressure to normalize state-to-state 

relationships. 

The potential for confidence building and maybe even trust at 

some point between Iran and the international community as implementation proceeds could initiate a more pragmatic political dynamic inside Iran to address the very real unrest and frustrations 

of the population, the majority of whom are under 30 years of age. 

Much is going to depend on Iranian behavior toward its neighbors and whether it continues to instigate the Shia minorities to 

confront Sunni leadership in the Gulf countries. In Iraq, there is 

certainly some overlap in U.S. and Iranian interests, but clearly 

their priority is to maintain influence with Baghdad. 

In addressing Iran’s benign activities globally, we should make 

sure at every opportunity that cooperation with Iran on this comprehensive current nuclear weapons deal in no way will excuse or 

cause us to ignore Iranian bad behavior in other areas. Strengthening our ties to the GCC, encouraging cooperative security efforts 

by these nations, supported by consistent engagement by U.S. 

forces, should reassure these countries of American resolve and disabuse them of any notion that we may be aligning ourselves with 

Iranian interests in the region. 

The significant current disagreement between the U.S. and Israel 

regarding the approach to Iran is recognized as a difference in priority of national interest, should be addressed with a continued 

strong U.S. commitment to Israeli security. 

In summary, this joint plan is a unique opportunity to address 

one of the most pressing issues of international security and stability today. The agreement has been painstakingly negotiated in 

concert with allies and other parties, and I believe offers the most 

reasonable and likely way ahead to forestall an Iranian nuclear 

weapon for the next decade or more. It may not satisfy every aspiration, but I have heard no credible alternative proposal. 

15

American initiative and persistence enabled the parties to come 

to an agreement, and continued leadership will be essential for successful implementation. I recommend congressional support with 

continued engagement to enable implementation and verification of 

the many complex and critical aspects of the agreement. 

Thank you, and I will be pleased to answer any specific questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Fallon follows:]

16


96048b-1.eps
17


96048b-2.eps
18

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Admiral. 

Admiral Bird. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL JOHN BIRD, USN, RETIRED 

(FORMER COMMANDER, U.S. SEVENTH FLEET) 

Admiral BIRD. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, members 

of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you today. It is an honor and a privilege to be here joined by such 

distinguished and highly accomplished professionals on this panel. 

My decades of service as first a career submarine officer, and then 

a fleet commander of the United States Navy afforded me the experience and expertise to understand potential threats posed by adversaries like Iran, especially in the maritime environment. 

Along with General Wald, I am a member of the new Iran Strategy Council, an organization of former senior U.S. military officials 

sponsored by JINSA’s Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy. 

As General Wald stated, we released a report last week assessing 

that the JCPOA will make the United States and its allies less secure and military confrontation with Iran and its proxies more likely. 

Specifically and fundamentally, the JCPOA will allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state no later than 15 years. During that 

time, it will enable Iran to become more powerful and expand its 

influence not only across the Middle East, and negatively impact 

U.S. national security. The JCPOA’s lifting of economic sanctions 

will provide to Iran more resources for military spending, while its 

ending of the U.N. arms embargo will give Iran access to advanced 

technologies and weapons from abroad, most likely from China and 

Russia. 

Iran will likely use these opportunities to augment its asymmetric capabilities to include anti-access area denial strategy to 

deter or prevent our military forces from operating effectively in 

the Middle East. This could include more accurate antiship missiles, attack craft, submarines, mines, advanced air systems, UAVs, 

longer-range radars, enhanced EW and CW capabilities. In short 

order, Iran could credibly threaten to seal off the Straits of 

Hormuz, block the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, and target 

our military forces and those of our allies. And once sanctions end 

on its ballistic missile program, Iran could more easily develop 

weapons capable of reaching targets in the Middle East and beyond, including Europe. 

Additionally, the JCPOA will allow Iran to funnel more money 

and weapons to destabilizing forces across the region, from the 

Assad regime in Syria, to Shia militias, chiefly Hezbollah, to expanded involvement in Yemen and other strategic parts of the Arabian Peninsula that are vulnerable to sectarian conflict. Therefore, 

the JCPOA will aggravate sectarian conflict, trigger nuclear and 

conventional proliferation, and strain ties with our regional allies. 

Meanwhile, sequestration is diminishing our military’s ability to 

deter and respond to global threats, including increased Iran aggression. Maintaining our position in the Middle East to prevent a 

nuclear Iran will demand increasing resources, posture, and attention, far more than is provided today. 

19

To Ranking Member Engel’s point, now that we have the agreement, what next? 

First, we need to sustain multilateral engagement and enhance 

it with our Middle East allies to assemble a regional coalition to 

hold the line against Iran, built on greater cooperation on missile 

defense, intelligence, and air and maritime superiority. 

Second, significant diplomatic effort must be devoted to convincing Iran’s most likely suppliers, mainly Russia and China, not 

to sell Iran advanced weapons. 

Third, we must develop a comprehensive national strategy to 

deal with Iran’s growing adversarial ambitions. 

Finally, we must preserve our country’s military edge against 

Iran with recapitalization, investment, and modernization of our 

forces. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for my time, and I look forward to 

the committee’s questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Bird follows:]

20


96048c-1.eps
21


96048c-2.eps
22


96048c-3.eps
23


96048c-4.eps
24

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Wieseltier. 

STATEMENT OF MR. LEON WIESELTIER, ISAIAH BERLIN SENIOR FELLOW IN CULTURE AND POLICY, FOREIGN POLICY 

AND GOVERNANCE STUDIES, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

Mr. WIESELTIER. Thank you, Chairman Royce and Ranking 

Member Engel. Thank you all to members of this committee. 

Many critics more expert than myself have commented on the 

technical details of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that 

the Obama administration has concluded with the Islamic Republic 

of Iran. In truth, it does not take an expert to understand the 

shortcomings of this deal if the objective of the deal is indeed to 

prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Since this is an objective that the administration plainly shares, its satisfaction with 

an arrangement that achieves this objective only temporarily, for 

a short period of time, while otherwise vindicating and legitimating 

Iran’s eventual ability to weaponize its nuclear knowledge and infrastructure is difficult to understand. 

From the standpoint of arms control, this deal is a respite, not 

a release from our well-founded anxiety about Iran’s military ambitions. A respite is only a pause, and the Joint Comprehensive Plan 

of Action is only a pause. It is not a reckoning with the prospect 

of an Iranian nuclear arsenal, it is a postponement of such a reckoning. The Iranian regime did not make a strategic decision to renounce nuclear weapons. It made a tactical decision to defer nuclear weapons so as to accomplish the strategic decision it did 

make, which was to escape the crushing sanctions that were the result of its nuclear adventurism. 

We used a lot of leverage for too little. All the ominous options 

must remain on the infamous table. The accord is a change in degree, not a change in kind. 

The dissatisfaction with the accord that I have just expressed 

concerns only the arms control aspects of the deal. But arms control never takes place in a political and strategic vacuum. It cannot 

be insulated from history or from morality. We recently learned 

this rather bitterly in Syria where the confiscation of its dictator’s 

arsenal of chemical weapons turned out to have no impact whatever upon the conduct or the outcome of this catastrophic war and 

its endless atrocities. In the Syrian case, indeed, the narrow focus 

upon arms control was a way to evade the larger moral and strategic challenges of the horrors which this administration, its lofty 

rhetoric notwithstanding, has adamantly refused to face. I fear that 

the Iran deal is playing a similarly evasive role in the thinking of 

the administration. 

At least our adventure in arms control in Syria did not alter our 

contempt for its regime, even if our contempt had no practical implications for our policy. In the case of Iran, however, the deal that 

we have just concluded and the spirit in which we have just concluded it strongly suggests that this exercise in arms control represents something more—a revision of our troubled relationship 

with Iran, an attempt to establish some sort of detente with the Islamic Republic, a lovely hope that it can be reintegrated into the 

community of nations. 

25

The President has both confirmed and denied such an interpretation of the accord in keeping with his tactical needs of the moment. 

But it is hard not to intuit in this deal the hand that he extended 

to the Islamic Republic as long ago as his first inaugural address. 

For this reason, it is important that the deal be analyzed, not only 

as arms control, but also as foreign policy. And it disappoints me 

as foreign policy even more than it disappoints me as arms control. 

It is not always the case that conflict is the result of a misunderstanding or a mistake. Sometimes conflict is a sign that differences 

have been properly understood. The troubled relationship of the 

United States with Iran should be troubled. Our previous hostility 

to the Islamic Republic was not based on a misreading of the Islamic Republic in its conduct within its borders or beyond it borders. 

When one speaks about an unfree country, when one says the 

word ‘‘Iran,’’ for example, one may be referring either to its government or to its people, but one may not be referring to both because 

they are not on the same side. An expression of friendship toward 

a dictatorship is an expression of enmity or indifference toward its 

people. 

The President, when he speaks about Iran, likes to believe that 

he is speaking about its people, but in practice it is the regime to 

whom his hand has been warmly extended. The text of the accord 

states that we will submit a resolution to the Security Council ‘‘expressing a desire to build a new relationship with Iran,’’ not a new 

relationship with a new Iran, but a new relationship with this 

Iran, with a criminal, oppressive, theocratic, belligerent, corrupt, 

anti-American, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, and homophobic regime 

that is consecrated no only to its God, but also to thwarting American allies and interests and principles everywhere and remorselessly sponsoring terrorism. 

What democrat, what pluralist, what liberal, what conservative, 

what believer, what nonbeliever, what American would want this 

Iran for a friend? What constructive role can this Iran—yes, I know 

it is opposed to ISIS—play in the community of nations? And what 

constructive role can it play toward its own people? When the sanctions are lifted and Iran is economically rewarded for limited and 

passing concessions on its enrichment program, it will, of course, 

use some of the windfall to intensify its mischief abroad, about 

which more in a moment, and it will use the rest of its windfall 

to strengthen its economy. But we have no reason to think that 

opening up an economy has the effect of opening up a society. 

There is a great deal of saddening but serious evidence that economic liberalization need not entail political liberalization. We hear 

a lot about a contest in Tehran between hardliners and moderates, 

as we have in previous periods of wishful thinking about Iran, but 

it is important to remember that political conflict in Iran takes 

place within an absolutist structure of power in which supreme authority rests with a single individual who rules by divine sanction. 

If the Ayatollah and the IRGC have not opened up their society, 

it is not because they lack the cash. 

Consider also the Iranian regime’s foreign policy. During the period of our negotiations with Iran, Iran was intervening furiously 

to inflame the Shia in Iraq, to prop up Bashar al-Assad in Syria, 

26

to support Hezbollah in Lebanon, and to arm Hamas in Gaza. Its 

regional aggressions, which were directed at American interests 

and American allies, were uninhibited by a fear of offending the 

United States during a delicate negotiation about an issue of the 

highest importance. 

We, by contrast, inhibited ourselves in all these places. We 

stayed our hands for many reasons, but one of them was a worry 

about damaging our nuclear diplomacy with Iran. The lessons of 

the 1970s and 1980s, when the United States had the wisdom and 

the courage to press the Soviet Union all at once about arms control and human rights and proxy wars, were lost on our President. 

And there is also the question, or rather the cause, of Israel. The 

Islamic Republic’s ceaseless calls for the extermination of the Jewish state must not be treated as some sort of foible or eccentricity 

that makes us sigh as we get on with the really important business. It should disgust us as a Nation and our disgust should take 

the form of policy. 

Whatever one thinks of Israel’s methods in intervening in the 

American debates, or of its actions and inactions toward the Palestinians, it would be indecent not to understand Israel’s anguish 

at the prospect of the nuclearization of a state that arms its enemies and is eager for its destruction. 

From the standpoint of foreign policy then, the nuclear accord 

disturbs me because it will almost certainly invigorate a contemptible and bellicose regime. And so I propose that in the aftermath 

of the accord we proceed to do whatever we can to weaken that regime. The adoption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 

should be accompanied by a resumption of our hostility to the Iranian regime and its various forces. 

The suggestion is not as paradoxical as it sounds. Diplomats like 

to say that you talk with your enemies. They are right, and we 

have talked with them, but they are still our enemies. We need to 

restore democratization to its pride of place among the priorities of 

our foreign policy and to oppress the theocrats in Tehran everywhere with expressions in word and deed of our implacable opposition to their war on their own people. 

We need to support Iranian dissidents in any way we can, not 

least so that they do not feel abandoned and alone, and we must 

indefatigably demand the release of Moussavi and Kairoubi from 

the house arrest in which they have been sealed since the regime’s 

crackdown on the democratic rebellion of 2009, on which our Government turned its back. And how, in good conscience, could we 

have proceeded with these negotiations while an innocent American journalist was held captive in an Iranian jail? 

We need to despise the Iranian regime loudly and regularly and 

damage its international position as fiercely as we can for its desire 

to destroy Israel. We need to degrade by sanctions and other means 

the more dangerous elements of Iran’s conventional arsenal. And 

we need to arm the enemies of Iran in Syria and Iraq and therefore 

offer a consequential obstacle to Iran’s plain-as-day campaign to attain regional hegemony. 

But even as I say these word, my heart sinks, because I know 

that that administration will not accept such activist prescriptions. 

And yet, it is not just the Obama administration that has preferred 

27

a diminution of America’s presence in the world when it comes to 

asserting American power as a force for security and justice, of recognizing the legitimacy and the necessity of American interventions 

against evils that offend our interests and our values—and of recognizing too that there are many courses of action that fall between 

Obama’s lassitude and Bush’s shock and awe—when it comes to articulating a right and fierce sense of America’s responsibility in the 

world, neither Democrats, nor Republicans have exactly covered 

themselves in glory in recent years. 

The adoption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action would 

be an appropriate occasion for opening a new discussion of the first 

principles of our foreign policy. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wieseltier follows:]

28


96048d-1.eps
29


96048d-2.eps
30


96048d-3.eps
31

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Wieseltier. I have a question 

for you, and it goes to this issue of looking back in time at what 

has worked. 

You are right in terms of the difficulty in finding an effective approach to changing these types of totalitarian regimes. But in the 

1980s, I was part of an exchange program that was partly in Eastern Europe, and I watched the combination of strategy, bringing 

down the price of oil then to $10 a barrel, the focus on what could 

be done in terms of broadcasting with Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty, which was much, much different. I mean it was a lesson 

plan in political tolerance, in political pluralism. It was taking a society that was two to one opposed to the totalitarian regime and 

ratcheting it up until it was three to one or four to one in opposition. 

What is interesting to me is that for the last generation in Iran, 

people have been two to one against the theocracy. The last Gallup 

Poll I saw, when they asked the question, ‘‘What type of system do 

you want?’’ they said, ‘‘A Western-style democracy without a theocracy.’’ That was the will of two-thirds of the people. 

Now, when you have a theocracy, when you have a totalitarian 

regime, that is not enough to get you there, from our experience 

with Eastern Europe, but if you ratchet that up, you can get there. 

And I think the frustration for many of us was the failure to deploy. I mean, now it is dysfunctional, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, that is dysfunctional. Support for the opposition, nonexistent. 

In 2009, when the students were protesting, they did not feel that 

the United States was on their side in that debate, nor was the 

broadcasting on their side during that debate, or on social media 

on their side during that debate. 

So the question for me would go to your observation, you know, 

the parallel with the Dreyfus affair, when you say you learned that 

there are times when an injustice to only one man deserves to 

bring things to a halt. In Iran today, there is an injustice, not just 

to those being held in Evin Prison, not just to the American you 

speak to, but to a whole society. How do we empower that society? 

I don’t think it is with this agreement, because I think this agreement, in fact, empowers the IRGC and the Ayatollah. But how do 

we empower those people? 

Mr. WIESELTIER. Let me say four quick points about that. Thank 

you for your remarks. 

The first one is this. If it is indeed the case, as the defenders of 

the deal say, that it is in the rational interest of the Iranian Government to renounce nuclear weapons, and if it is indeed the case 

that the Iranian regime is the rational actor that those defenders 

describe, and if it is indeed the case that the Iranian regime would 

like to be reintroduced into the so-called community of nations, 

then we set our goals too modestly; then we set our goals too modestly. We had certain prior assumptions about Iranian flexibility, 

and it is not at all clear to me that they were ipso facto true. And 

those assumptions were based on a whole variety of things having 

to do with the administration’s larger views about foreign policy 

and America’s role in the world that we can talk about at another 

time or later. 

32

Secondly, it is very important to remember that democratization 

is not an event, it is an era. It takes a very long time. It took a 

long time in Central and Eastern Europe under communism. It 

took a long time. One of the mistakes or illusions created by the 

Iraq war was that we can simply send in a bunch of troops, you 

know, fly our Air Force, and we would have a parliamentary system overnight. That is not how a society living in tyranny and repression becomes free. And when you emancipate people, when you 

make them free, you emancipate the actually existing people, and 

those are people who have not had experience of democracy. So we 

must keep our heads and regard this as a policy for the long term. 

Thirdly, there are many instruments available to the United 

States in the support of democrats and dissidents everywhere. This 

debate, not in this room right now, but generally the Iranian nuclear debate, the administration’s approach to this, has been a terribly Manichaean picture in which it is either this particular deal 

or a catastrophic war. The United States is the greatest power in 

the world with a vast variety of instruments that it can deploy at 

all levels, soft power, soft versions of hard power, and even hard 

versions of hard power. But, you know, we are not helpless in this. 

And fourth, it is very important to understand that when I say 

that we must support dissidents and democrats in countries, when 

I talk about democratization, I mean that we must support the 

forces where they already exist indigenously. One of the problems 

with our Iraq strategy was that we went in to topple a dictator 

who, God knows, was illegitimate and dangerous and had used 

chemical weapons against his people, whatever one thinks about 

that war. But we did not go in to support an indigenous force. In 

Syria, there was an indigenous force. I fear it may have been wiped 

out. The administration may have actually have fulfilled—its inaction may have fulfilled its worst prophecies. 

In Iran, Iran is, of all of the examples, Iran is a state, a tyrannical state with a social basis for an open society if ever there was 

one. And there is a robust community of democrats and dissidents 

in Iran that the United States, I think, has not only a moral obligation to support, but also an intensely strategic obligation to support, because I can think of no greater prize, geopolitically, in the 

region and beyond, than a change of regime in Tehran. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you Mr. Wieseltier. 

My time has expired. We are going to Mr. Eliot Engel of New 

York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In my opening remarks, I mentioned that one of the things that 

troubled me about this agreement was the fact that the new U.N. 

Security Council Resolution 2231, which accompanies the JPOA, 

lifts the arms embargo on Iran after 5 years and ballistic missile 

sanctions after 8 years. So I would like to ask Admiral Fallon, what 

are the strategic implications of lifting these particular sanctions, 

and are there redundant measures in place that the United States 

can rely on that will prevent Iran from introducing further instability into the region? 

Admiral FALLON. Mr. Engel, who knows? We could speculate all 

day long. There has been an awful lot of that about every aspect 

of this deal. 

33

In my view, the most important thing is that Iran is very close, 

by pretty much consensus, to achieving a nuclear weapon. If they 

do that, I guess step back for a second and put this in perspective. 

There is no comparison in total power between Iran and the United 

States. They are not in the same league with us. 

However, they acquire a nuclear weapon, it gives them significant leverage to blackmail us and others against doing things in 

this region or other places that could be destabilizing. 

So it seems to me that you stack the priorities in what we would 

like to do here, keep the weapon out of their hands now is, in my 

view, far superior to the others, and that is what the objective is 

here. So there are all kinds of other things. If I had a clean sheet 

and could have all my desires, we wouldn’t have included any release of ballistic missile technology or access to other weapons and 

a long list of things that, from our perspective, we would like to 

see implemented. That is not realistic, absolutely not realistic, in 

my opinion. 

So what we are trying to do is to forestall the imminent potential 

of a nuclear weapon. There are only two ways to get there by my 

understanding of the physics. One is through uranium. We have removed, if this plan is agreed to and executed, removed that pile of 

uranium, enriched uranium. And the second is plutonium. And if 

the plant is not functioning, it is not very easy or likely they are 

going to build another heavy water plant any time soon. 

So to me, when you look at the alternatives, give me a real one. 

I have heard a lot of talk. Most of it is speculation and 

handwringing about what could happen. Who knows what could 

happen? But think of a couple things, if you would please, Members. Fifteen years, that is almost a generation, and that is basically what the deal is trying to buy, pushing this off that amount 

of time. 

The flip side, I don’t know of many people that are particularly 

thrilled with the leadership in Tehran. I certainly have no love for 

them whatsoever based on observed behavior up front and personal. But 15 years from now, Khamenei is going to be, if he is 

alive, 91. Do you think he is going to be ruling that country? This 

is a country where 50 percent of the population is under the age 

of 30. And you can feel it from here, they want change. 

So who knows what is going to happen? I think we could speculate all day long. It seems to me that we ought to be focused on 

the most important thing, and that is let’s stop the drive to a nuclear weapon now. 

Mr. ENGEL. And if anyone else cares to answer, it would seem 

to me, though, if we are looking to help the Iranian people have 

a more democratic regime, are we more likely to do it when Iran 

is awash in cash as this agreement will do, or are we more likely 

to have it if the Iranian economy, currency, and other things are 

struggling because they have a hold on moneys that they have? 

Vice Admiral, General, Leon? 

Admiral FALLON. Would you like me to take a shot at that first? 

Mr. ENGEL. Sure. 

Admiral FALLON. So the amount of money has also been debated, who knows, $50 billion or $100 billion, but in the big scheme of 

things, Iran seems to have done a pretty fair job of funding their 

34

ongoing activities around the world that we find pretty nefarious. 

So I am not sure what this infusion of cash might result in, but 

I know one thing, it is almost certain, and that is if this place 

opens up and you get the kind of economic activity that appears to 

be poised to—I mean, try to get a flight into Tehran from some European capital today—this country is going to open up. 

What that means for the future remains to be seen. But the idea 

that it is going to stay a closed society I don’t think is going to happen. So this offer is an opportunity to change that. 

Mr. ENGEL. Leon. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. I just wanted to make a remark about this notion that one hears everywhere now that one must support the deal 

because there is no alternative. I never quite understood this, this 

point. In the first place, if a plan does not furnish a solution to the 

problem that it sets out to solve, then it is itself not a real alternative and not a satisfactory alternative. The debate is about 

whether or not it does. But the idea that because it is the only plan 

there is we must support it makes no sense to me if we come honestly to the conclusion that it is a bad plan. 

And secondly, the idea that the argument that there is no alternative, I mean this deal is a respite of 10 years and 15 years, and 

we are told there is no alternative. But the same could have been 

said about a respite of 7 years and 12 years, or 3 years and 8 

years, or 6 months and a year. The idea that there is no alternative 

could be used to justify any deal. 

I think that the most important—the obligation we have is to 

judge the deal on its own merits, considering all its dimensions. 

And if we conclude that it is a bad deal, then I think people have 

to vote on their conscience about it. 

Mr. ENGEL. I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you Mr. Engel. 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and the 

ranking member. 

I want to follow up on the excellent points that they had made. 

We have heard from some of our witnesses today that as a result 

of this influx of sanctions relief cash, which Mr. Engel was talking 

about, and strengthening the economy, that Iran will being more 

powerful and more militarily capable. Of course, this also means 

that Iran will have more money to support terror and its proxies 

like Hezbollah and Hamas. 

If Iran right now and up to now has found the money even under 

these tightest of sanctions to fund its support for terror, do you believe that this influx, this new influx of funds will really go to help 

the domestic economy like the administration has been portraying? 

And furthermore, how can an emboldened Iranian military undermine our interests in the Gulf and in the Strait of Hormuz? 

We have also heard that as a result of this deal, we will have 

to increase cooperation with our partners in the region militarily. 

And how would we do that? Through increased arm sales. But this 

can prove to be quite problematic. Is it possible that allowing Iran’s 

military capability to build up and by us simultaneously arming 

Gulf countries in the region to the teeth, could this actually lead 

to another war and also make it more difficult for the U.S. to be 

35

able to respond? And how is it in our national interest in the region 

to have a conventional arms race and a nuclear arms race now that 

these countries have seen us allow Iran to keep its capability to enrich uranium? And how would this arms buildup threaten Israel’s 

security and Israel’s qualitative military edge? 

And I agree with you, sir, when the administration is calling 

those of us who oppose this deal, which is a bipartisan majority of 

Congress and the American public, warmongers, yet if this deal 

goes through, the United States will be responsible for the mass 

proliferation of conventional and nuclear weapons in the region. 

Lots of questions. 

General. 

General WALD. I will answer that. 

First of all, I think your points are excellent. I would like to just 

make a personal comment. I don’t think there would be anything 

better for us today in this world if we could ensure Iran didn’t have 

a nuclear weapon. I don’t like that idea at all. 

The concern I have about the deal is that we haven’t talked 

about the after the deal what we are going to do. And the idea that 

Iran now is going to have $100 billion, $50 billion, I don’t care, $50 

billion is a lot, a lot more than they have now, to modernize their 

capability—and they will—is bothersome to me as a military person. 

Number two is, I think the idea that this deal is going to preclude war, I don’t think the deal or not a deal is going to preclude 

war. I think it is a matter of how Iran acts. And they have demonstrated the desire to cause problems in the Middle East. This 

issue with Hezbollah that the ranking member brought up is not 

trivial. We have heard it is 100,000 missiles that are pointed at 

Israel. 

Number two is, modernizing their intercontinental ballistic missile or regional missile capability is going to be hugely problematic 

for not just the GCC states, but the United States as a partner. 

Verification. I don’t know how we are going to really ensure that 

we have a good verification regime with the way the wording of the 

agreement has been stated. The fact that they are going to have 

24 days to do whatever they want, the fact we can’t go to their 

military facilities. I mean, we are going to need a strong 

verification regime that we do not have, and we should ensure that 

before we do this. And, again, you can say what you want to. Colin 

Powell was on TV Sunday talking about the Iraq invasion based on 

intelligence. We didn’t have a clue what Iraq had at that point. 

And we were putting a lot of effort into it. And you don’t think we 

have put a lot of effort into Iran? We don’t have an idea for sure 

what they are doing. And they will cheat. They will cheat. There 

is no doubt about it. 

Number three is, I think we need to continue to increase, as you 

pointed out, our support to our allies in the region, the GCC states, 

and we need to expect them to have us be participatory in a regional missile defense regime with them, not just part time, full 

time. 

Israel. We need to beef up Israel’s air defense capability. They 

shouldn’t have four or five Iron Domes. They ought to have 30 Iron 

Domes. And the fact of the matter, unless Iran is deterred, unless 

36

Iran is deterred, they are going to cause havoc in the region. They 

don’t just want to be a nuclear power, they want to be a regional 

hegemon. Having them get $100 billion to modernize their capability is a bad idea. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. I agree. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We now go to Mr. Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, a lot of discussion, is this a good deal, is this a 

bad deal? It is not our job here to grade the President of the United 

States or his predecessors. That is the job of talk show hosts, pundits, ultimately historians. Our job here is to guide the House of 

Representatives, how can the House make a positive contribution 

to this Nation’s foreign policy under today’s conditions? Not the 

conditions that existed a month ago or a year ago. 

A month ago when we left Washington some believed that the 

House and the Senate might immediately affect our foreign policy 

under the Corker bill by passing a binding resolution of disapproval over the President’s veto and preventing the President 

from delivering some portion of the sanctions relief promised in Vienna. Whether that was ever in the cards then, we know it is not 

in the cards now. The House cannot prevent the President from delivering the sanctions relief called for by the agreement. Thirty-four 

Senators, with seven to spare, have already announced their position. 

Now, we might want to live in a fantasy world. In my fantasy 

world the Ayatollah is about to convert to Christianity. In the fantasy world of others, a joint resolution of disapproval is about to 

be passed over the President’s veto by both Houses by a two-thirds 

majority. We are not here to live in a fantasy world. 

What are the points we can all agree on? Believe it or not, there 

are points, and this has been a contentious debate, we can all agree 

on. 

First, as I have pointed out, this deal is going to go into effect 

for the next year and a half. Whether it goes through after a veto 

or before a veto, the world will not remember for very long. 

The second thing we can all agree on is that the nuclear safeguards in this deal are much better in this decade than they are 

next decade. We know what America’s foreign policy will be until 

2017. We do not know what is in our national interest in 2017 or 

2027. As Admiral Fallon said, there is just no way to know. 

So the greatest contribution this House can make is to preserve 

America’s freedom of action dealing with circumstances we cannot 

predict. Even if you love this deal, the greatest proponents don’t 

say there is a guarantee that it represents our best national interests next decade. And even if you hate this deal, you do not know 

what will be in our national interest next decade. What we need 

is freedom of action. 

The threat to our freedom of action is that we are the good guys. 

We follow international law. If something is binding, we feel bound. 

The House can make one contribution, and that is to demonstrate 

to the American people and the world that this is not a binding 

agreement. Now, that has the additional advantage of being true. 

37

It is not binding on America under the United States Constitution. 

And in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, this is the 

lowest possible executive handshake. It is not a ratified treaty, it 

is not an unratified treaty, it is not an executive legislative agreement. 

So we have got to have the clearest possible message that this 

agreement is not binding on the President and not binding on Congress. 

We are scheduled to deal with a resolution of disapproval, which 

as I pointed out will not, even if it passes, and that is problematic. 

In the Senate it will be vetoed. Ultimately it will be defeated, 

maybe only by 34 percent of one house, but it will be defeated. 

There are three other approaches we could take that would make 

a clearer statement. We could have a concurrent resolution of disapproval that doesn’t go to the President’s desk, we could have a 

House resolution of disapproval that doesn’t even go to the Senate, 

or we could vote on, as provided in the Corker bill, on a resolution 

of approval and it would be voted down. Those would be clearer 

statements than where we are headed now, which is ultimately a 

victory for the proponents of the deal. 

But I don’t run the House. None of us on this side of this aisle 

run the House. We will vote on those matters that are brought to 

the floor, and we have got to vote in a way that preserves freedom 

of action. The President has the freedom of action for the rest of 

his term. That is guaranteed by the votes in the Senate. Now we 

have to preserve freedom of action for future Presidents under future circumstances. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Joe Wilson of South Carolina. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I 

want to thank you, I want to thank the ranking member Eliot 

Engel, the courage that you have had over the last month as the 

American people find out more about this deal, they find out how 

dangerous it is. 

The thought that there would be self-inspection, it is inconceivable, of putting the American people at risk, putting the Middle 

East at risk, putting our military at risk. I have four sons currently 

serving in the military today, so I take it personally that indeed 

our American military is put at risk by working with a country 

that provided the IEDs that killed so many of our troops. 

And how we can forget 1983, the attack on the Marine barracks 

in Beirut, which was a direct attack by Iran killing nearly 300 marines. And people should know that that bomb explosion was the 

largest explosive device since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

And then just 3 years ago this regime, a murderous regime, was 

attempting to blow up and kill the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia 

to the United States. 

And so for us to be dealing with Islamofascists as if they are 

trustworthy is utterly inconceivable. 

There has been one highlight to me, though, of this debate. Right 

here I had an opportunity to be here with Senator Joseph 

Lieberman. This is bipartisan. He expressed a heartfelt belief that 

the deal should be defeated and that it should be overridden. And 

I had the opportunity to be with him in New York. 

38

And so as I think back to where we are. And, General Wald, a 

concern that I have is that with the lifting of the military sanctions, in addition to unfrozen funds, estimated, let’s take the numbers, can you imagine, $50 billion, $100 billion, $150 billion? That 

is a lot of money. What will this do for Iran’s well-documented support of terrorism and destabilization across the globe? Could you 

please speak to these concerns and what impact this will have on 

the overall security chaos that is currently in the Middle East? And 

how does this affect American families at home? 

General WALD. Thank you. I go back again, I agree with your 

comments. I think from my perspective as a military person who 

spent a lot of time in the Middle East, I was in charge at the beginning of the Afghan war that I thought was pretty successful. I have 

been to the Middle East 45 times. I have close friends there. I have 

been to Israel 40 times. 

My concern about the deal is that I don’t believe we have a 

strong verification process, and that worries me. And if we don’t 

have a strong verification process, something that isn’t necessarily 

even that much greater than we have today, that is not a good 

thing. 

On the other side, for that ability, for Iran to have this lifting 

of the sanctions, they are going to have the money to, as you point 

out, modernize their military. Their military has been problematic 

for us anyway over the last 30 years. I mean, back in the 1990s 

we had a reflagging of friendly shipping through the region called 

Earnest Will. The United States Navy escorted every ship through 

the Straits of Hormuz because of the threat of the Iranian missiles, 

the scuds from Bandar Abbas. 

They don’t have the ability to actually threaten our air today because they haven’t had the ability to modernize their air capability. 

They don’t have surface-to-air missiles that are worth a darn. With 

this money they are going to have released, they will be able to 

modernize their air defense, as Admiral Bird mentioned, their antiaccess, they will be able to modernize their air force, they will be 

able to modernize their missile capability. I will guarantee you that 

they are not going to sit idle in the Persian Gulf. 

And the irony is we are actually putting ourselves in a more difficult position militarily by allowing themselves to modernize. We 

don’t have a verification regime that I think would pay that off. So 

that is my concern. 

Mr. WILSON. And I also am very, very concerned, Admiral Bird, 

it is my understanding that the funding for Hezbollah with the 

missile capability, the rocket capability to strike Israel, that it is 

currently being funded at $200 million a year. So if you have $50 

billion what would be the consequence? 

Admiral BIRD. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. And I agree with what 

General Wald said. 

As Admiral Fallon and other members have pointed out, we are 

very unsure as to what Iran might do and what the breakout period is with respect to nuclear weapons. What we are not unsure 

about is what they intend to do with additional resources. They 

have more or less announced that they see this deal very narrowly, 

only dealing with their nuclear infrastructure. My sense is it is a 

delay of game until they ultimately get a nuclear weapon. 

39

What it is not a delay of is the money they will fund toward 

Hezbollah, to their military capabilities. And given a total expense 

of $16 billion for their military defense, any infusion of capital to 

the tune of $50 billion or $100 billion would be dramatic. 

At the same time, the technology associated with ballistic missiles, asymmetric threats that I spoke of, is increasing somewhat 

organically to Iran, but certainly on the export market. So there is 

no doubt that Iran would get greater access to arms, ballistic missiles, submarines, attack aircraft, and the like, and funnel it to 

Hezbollah, as well as to their mainstream navy and Armed Forces, 

and be very problematic for the United States Navy, for the United 

States military in the Gulf. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Albio Sires of New Jersey. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this hearing. 

And thank you for being here. 

I want all those people that are very concerned about the time, 

the 10 or 15 years, as I look at this region, a region with thousands 

of years of history, they have seen countries come and go, and I 

look at these hardliners in Iran, and they are saying: Well, this 

deal may go, but we are going to be here after this deal is done. 

And I can just see them positioning themselves when this is gone. 

When you spoke about the Ayatollah in 10, 15 years he is going 

to be 90, 91 years old, well there is a succession, and all these 

countries have it. I look at China hardliners. There is a succession 

there. I look at some of these other countries, Vietnam. There is 

a succession there. I look at my own country where I was born, 

Cuba, there is a succession there. So to me 10, 15 years is the blink 

of an eye in a part of the world that has been around for thousands 

of years. 

And furthermore, I really do think that all these other countries 

around that do not trust Iran, there is going to be a nuclear arms 

race, or there is going to be an effort, because they do not trust 

Iran that eventually they are not going to develop a bomb. And 

they have a history of not trusting each other. 

So to me, I don’t get it. And I hate the fact that when I say I 

have these concerns, people somehow label me as a warmonger. I 

mean, is most of America a warmongering country? 

So do you anticipate that this is going to lead to an arms race, 

Mr. Wieseltier? 

Mr. WIESELTIER. I think that, you know, in life time is a very 

strange thing. Some things feel long and some things feel short. I 

think that 15 years is a young person’s idea of a long time. I mean, 

I think it is no time at all. 

Moreover, I think that the burden of proof about the nature of 

the future character of the Iranian regime and the future behavior 

of the Iranian regime falls on those who believe for some reason 

that it is going to change and moderate itself. And I see no reason. 

I think this regime is intently committed to its own preservation. 

It believes, as I said, that it—it actually believes that it rules by 

divine sanction. I believe that the Revolutionary Guards, which as 

someone noted are intimately involved and corrupt a great part of 

40

the Iranian economy, is also intently committed to its own fascistic 

control over large sectors of Iranian society. 

These are not actors that will move aside voluntarily or who will 

one day read Jefferson and Madison and come to their senses. That 

is not how it is going to happen. The only way it will happen is 

because Iranian society is full of many good, liberal-leaning—

′′liberal’’ in the larger term—Western-leaning, democratizing people. There is, as I said, a social basis for a new regime in Tehran. 

A new regime in Tehran is not something that the United States 

can or should bring about on its own, but it is something that if 

there is movement within the Iranian people, within the country of 

Iran, it is something that I believe American foreign policy must 

make it one of its priorities to support. 

We have to keep our heads here. It is going to take a while. But 

there were people for a very long time who told us that the Soviet 

Union was immortal, it would not fall. And indeed it did fall, not 

because we brought it down, but because we helped. 

Mr. SIRES. But it took a long time. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. There is no way around this. There is no fast 

forwarding——

Mr. SIRES. No, I agree with you. 

Mr. WIESELTIER [continuing]. There is no fast forwarding history. 

What worries me about this deal and about certain other aspect of 

the Obama administration is that we have gone backwards in this 

regard and not forward. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

I just want to ask, how do you justify the fact that most of the 

country does not agree with this deal. 

Admiral FALLON. Well, the first thing is we have all kinds of 

attributional statements that I have heard here today and in the 

media that I think have little basis in fact. They are opinions. Everybody has an opinion. 

If I could go back to Leon on one thing, just so you don’t characterize me in the no alternative group, we have lots of alternatives. 

My issue is show me one that actually might achieve something 

that this thing looks like it has got a pretty good chance to do. 

I would invite us to step back from this a little bit and look at 

the bigger picture. This plan is just what it is, a plan, it is long, 

149 pages, whatever it is. This is not the end of the world. This 

is not a ship casting off and going to sea never to be seen again. 

This is just a step in a process. And as someone who ground his 

teeth and shed more than a few tears at my people who were killed 

as a direct result of Iranian actions in Lebanon, in Iraq, this is not 

some abstract nonsense. 

But at some point in time, we have got to, in my view, look at 

the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is this region, the Middle 

East, is very unstable, it is very insecure. And the thing that appears to instigate the most instability is the hammering concern 

about Iranian nuclear weapons. 

And so I invite you to look at the technical aspects of this thing. 

It is going to be very difficult to continue a uranium enrichment 

program or plutonium. How are they going to get the bomb over 

us? Is it going to drop out of the sky? Yeah, they could. I mean, 

41

you could speculate all kinds of things. They could get one from 

Pakistan. 

But I think the bigger issue here is we need to focus on the most 

immediate thing and recognize that it is going to be a many-step 

evolution. The implementation of this thing is really hard. You 

think this is hard? In my view, start working through the details 

of the implementation. And this is where the Congress, in my opinion, can really help. 

So at some point in time in every dispute, it seems to me, if you 

are going to make progress, you have got to suck it up and say, you 

know, I don’t like this. So the comment that Congressman Wilson 

made, have we forgotten the Marine barracks? I sure haven’t. I was 

there. 

Chairman ROYCE. Time has expired. 

We are going to Mr. Darrell Issa of California. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General WALD. May I make a real quick comment on that last 

point real quick before we leave it? 

I think it is ironic that Admiral Fallon, who is a friend of mine, 

would say that the biggest issue here is this instability in the Middle East, and the nuclear weapon is an issue but that other parts 

of it are even more important. And in fact this deal is going to give 

Iran the ability to make the Middle East a lot more unstable. And 

it is ironic to me that everybody that says if you don’t like the deal 

you are a warmonger, you want to blow up Iran, I would like to 

avoid any conflict. But I will guarantee you, Iran with the money 

they are going to get from the sanctions lifting, is going to change 

the dynamic in the Middle East significantly. 

And I will tell you another thing, and Congressman Royce know 

this. Robert Mugabe, we keep saying he is going to die any day. 

He is going to live forever. I mean, the idea you are going to wait 

until somebody dies to change some kind of policy is not a very 

good way to go. 

Chairman ROYCE. We have got to go to Mr. Darrell Issa of California. I am sure we will come back to some of these arguments. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have lived to ask my questions. 

How many of you on the panel know or have visited the Trinity 

site in New Mexico? Okay. So for those who haven’t visited it, that 

was the first successful nuclear explosion, occurred in July 1945. 

How many of you know how many years after we began the 

Manhattan Project that bomb went off? Well, August 13, we just 

had the 73rd anniversary. It was less than 3 years at a time when 

computers mostly ticked, because relays were clicking, that it took 

us only 3 years to produce a nuclear weapon. That concerns me 

every bit as much as 37 years of ayatollah after ayatollah murdering Americans and our allies around the world and spreading 

terrorism. 

So I want to ask just a couple of questions. And, Admiral Fallon, 

you generals and admirals are all friends up there, but I consider 

you a friend, but today I have got to ask you some tough questions. 

So I will put it this way, Bill: Have you read all the side agreements? 

42

Admiral FALLON. I am not sure what you mean by side agreements. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, the agreements that are not part of the deal that 

is being presented to Congress. 

Admiral FALLON. If you are getting at the two so-called secret 

protocols——

Mr. ISSA. Yes, sir. 

Admiral FALLON [continuing]. I guess, no I haven’t read them. 

Mr. ISSA. So can any of us make a fully educated understanding 

of this deal without knowing the deal in its entirety? I am not saying that every part of it is something that Congress has to oversee, 

but whether it is the IAEA or any other side agreements that are 

there, if we are going to approve what is effectively a treaty, why 

is it that anyone can reach a conclusion if we haven’t seen the entire deal? And I will ask each of you that question. 

Admiral FALLON. Okay. First, if I could comment, it is not a treaty——

Mr. ISSA. It is effectively a treaty. 

Admiral FALLON. It is not a treaty. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Let’s put it this way. It effectively changes our 

role in a way in which we treat an absolute enemy of this state 

who still occupies our Embassy in Tehran with its foreign students 

and Revolutionary Guard types, they still occupy that illegally as 

we speak today. They are still a terrorist state. They are still a 

state that doesn’t recognize international law. And we now are 

going to allow them 5 years from now to get ICBMs. So the answer 

to your question that you asked rhetorically is, how are they going 

to drop the bomb? Well, in 5 years they are going to drop the bomb 

with an ICBM they are fully allowed to buy. 

Admiral FALLON. Well, I would be very much more concerned 

about the coercive effect in the next year or 2 years. But back to 

your original question, this Additional Protocol, I don’t know what 

the exact language is, but I think what is noteworthy about it is 

that this is a voluntary expansion, as I understand it, of Iran 

agreeing to allow the IAEA to look at things that heretofore had 

not been looked at. 

It might be noteworthy that this is not a typical thing, and there 

is a separate agreement on Parchin, that is the second part of it. 

And why would we be interested? Why the IAEA? You know why, 

because of bad behavior in the past. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Let me switch my question——

Admiral FALLON. Nobody has agreed to it before. This is the first 

time——

Mr. ISSA. First of all my understanding is all they are agreeing 

to do is what they already agreed to do by protocol for years and 

refused to do. The sites they are prohibiting are sites they have 

prohibited in violation of agreements they already signed. 

But let me just ask the fundamental question, and I was in the 

Sinai over the break, I saw the Boko Haram problem in Nigeria. 

These are areas outside of what we talk about every day, but they 

are part of the spreading Islamic activities on both the Sunni and 

Shia side that are beginning to dominate more and more of the 

world. 

43

So seeing all of that, I only ask one question: Why should Congress agree to any deal that allows one of the major protagonists 

to have $140 billion more that is clearly going to be used to spread 

their agenda, their Shia caliphate, in opposition to a Sunni caliphate, in opposition to the Western world agreement to let people live 

in peace, including the Christians in the Arab and Muslim world? 

I will just go down the line. General Wald. 

General WALD. We shouldn’t. Period. 

Admiral FALLON. The answer to that one is that we have had 36 

years of zippo except head butting. At some point in time it is in 

our national interest to try to do something to stabilize this region. 

We don’t like these guys, they don’t like us, we don’t trust them. 

What else is new? But at some point in time, we have got to actually take a step forward——

Mr. ISSA. I want to quickly just get through the other two. Where 

do you stand on this, Admiral? 

Admiral BIRD. We should not. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. My own view is that whereas one should take 

risks for peace, one shouldn’t be played for a fool. And I worry that 

we are being played for fools here because the windfall of this 

money. I mean, these are matters of history. We know what the 

Iranian regime believes in. We know how it has behaved beyond 

its borders. I see absolutely no reason to believe that this windfall 

will not impact its adventures beyond its borders. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Issa. 

So we go now to Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Fallon, I just wanted to follow up on that last exchange. 

When you said that at some point we have to try to do something 

to stabilize the region, it seems to me there is just not a response 

to the very real concern that I think critics and supporters of the 

deal acknowledge, that money flowing to this regime, some portion 

of it is going to go to Hezbollah and Hamas and other terrorist 

groups. They will use that to further destabilize the regime. 

And so we can have a debate about what happens at the end of 

this deal, and I agree with Mr. Wieseltier that this is really just 

a pause, but that is a separate issue. In the short term, the money, 

the lifting of the arms embargo, the ability to conduct ballistic missile research, all of that will make the region I think less secure. 

It will destabilize the region, number one. 

And number two, from an arms control perspective, for all of us 

who really are concerned about nuclear proliferation, I fail to understand how once this deal goes forward, how it is that if the 

Saudis or Turkey or Egypt come to us, come to the United States 

and say, ‘‘You know what, we just want that, we will take the Iran 

deal, we will take all of the limitations, the limits on centrifuges, 

the duration, but we will take the deal that at the end of 10 years 

or 15 years gives us the ability to have an unlimited nuclear capacity,’’ how do we possibly say no to that? I don’t understand how we 

could possibly reject that once this deal is in place. 

Admiral FALLON. Well, I am not sure to your last point that anybody is lining up to——

44

Mr. DEUTCH. It is not whether they are, it is whether they could. 

That is always the debate about nuclear proliferation. 

Admiral FALLON. You can speculate all day long about what 

could. Many things could. But a couple of realities here. No sanction relief at all until Iran demonstrates that the uranium and plutonium are done. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Admiral Fallon, I am sorry, I only have a couple 

of minutes. And I am going to have to go, I want to change in a 

second. But I understand what has to be done. I am very familiar 

with the deal. But the question is, when they satisfy their requirements to get access to billions of dollars, that will destabilize the 

region. 

Admiral FALLON. In the near term, who knows what they are 

going to do with the money. It wouldn’t surprise me at all. But, you 

know, one of the ironic things about this——

Mr. DEUTCH. Okay. That is all I wanted—no, no, that is all I 

wanted to confirm. 

Admiral FALLON. Yeah, but, you know, taking this thing in isolation——

Mr. DEUTCH. No, no, Admiral Fallon, Admiral Fallon, I only have 

limited time. 

I was just hoping someone would finally acknowledge that. We 

can have a debate about this deal and long term where it goes. In 

the short term there will be more ability, a greater ability for Iran 

to destabilize, and there will be more violence. That should be our 

concern. We at least have to acknowledge it. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Wieseltier, I want to get back to your point about the regime, 

the anti-American, anti-Semitic, homophobic, misogynistic. What 

should be our role——

Mr. WIESELTIER. Speaking politely. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I understand, and that was only a short, brief listing of what you included. What should our foreign policy look like 

in a way to make it clear that a regime which makes being gay 

punishable by death, for example, a regime that—well, you have 

listed them all—I mean, how do we make clear, especially at this 

moment as this deal is going forward, that we are not just hoping 

that the regime changes but that we very clearly stand on the side 

of the Iranian people and not this difficult and horrible regime? 

Mr. WIESELTIER. You asked the important question. We don’t 

make it clear, of course, by immediately rushing to war with this 

regime. We begin to make it clear by including the critique of this 

regime and the principles upon which that critique would be based, 

meaning the full-throated defense of freedom, no matter how many 

times George W. Bush used that word, the full-throated defense of 

freedom, the notion that the United States will be on the side of 

people seeking freedom, the notion that there is a natural, democratic relationship between—a natural alliance, a natural relationship between democrats the world over and between democratic 

states the world over. 

We have in the last 6 years gone mute on these questions as a 

country. We have gone mute. We do not talk about freedom, we do 

not stand up to these dictators. We try to find realist—we specialize, we have a new specialty, not in inaction, but in inconsequential action. This is, I think, Obama’s innovation in our forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:04 Nov 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\090915\96048 SHIRL
45

eign policy. And I think that verbally and at all levels of the instruments that I describe, the United States has to make it clear that 

it is the country to which all such people should look to as a source 

for hope and help, as a source for hope and help. 

We can argue about what kind of help. Those are interesting debates. The idea that it is not either in our interest or a fulfillment 

of our values to offer such societies no help and no hope, that 

seems to me completely untrue, completely untrue. Yeah. That 

seems to me completely untrue. 

I just wanted to add one thing to what my friend, Mr. Deutch, 

said to your earlier point, which is when we talk about the release 

of the sanction money and what I agree is the inevitable mischief 

that will ensue as a result of it, we could think of it a little differently. I would even be willing to consider the instability that 

came from the release of the sanction money if the stability that 

the nuclear deal brought about nuclear weapons would be real, 

would be long lasting, would be permanent. That would be an interesting discussion. And that would be a miserably difficult tradeoff, but it would be a tradeoff that it might be worth talking about, 

because the idea of an Iran that agreed to renounce nuclear weapons would be a strategic victory of the highest order. 

But in an agreement in which the Iranians do not agree to go 

that far, so that the nuclear instability remains, it is deferred, it 

is postponed, it is brought down, it is delayed, but remains historically, then the question of the impact of the released sanction 

money becomes even more urgent. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Deutch. 

We go to Mr. Weber of Texas. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

This is for the panel. Basically the deal that is before us, when 

it was negotiated by Secretary Kerry and others, would it have 

been reasonable—and hopefully this is a yes-or-no questions for the 

four of you—would it have been, in your estimation, reasonable for 

the world’s leading exporter of terror, has four of our hostages, in 

your opinion, gentlemen, would it have been reasonable to say, ‘‘If 

you are going to be serious about getting back into the world community, world neighborhood,’’ would it have been reasonable, General Wald, to say, ‘‘The first thing you do as an act of good faith 

is give us our four hostages?’’ Would that have been reasonable? 

General WALD. My job is to do military advice. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, you have an opinion on it? If you don’t, 

that is fine. 

General WALD. I will give you an answer, from a U.S. citizen: Absolutely. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

General WALD. I mean, we are supposed to protect our country 

and that should be reasonable. 

If I could just say one last thing on that real quick, and I agree 

with you, but when we started the negotiations we had objectives, 

I believe. And I think negotiation means compromise, means discuss. I get that. But you have to have certain core principles you 

ought to stick with. And I think we compromised that on the way 

down the path. 

46

Mr. WEBER. And that is where I am going. 

Admiral Fallon, reasonable or not reasonable to say, ‘‘As an act 

of good faith, give us our hostages’’? 

Admiral FALLON. Probably not reasonable. 

Mr. WEBER. Probably not reasonable. 

Admiral FALLON. Do you know why? 

Mr. WEBER. No. 

Admiral FALLON. Because the priority is nuclear weapons. 

Mr. WEBER. I am not really interested. I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, I am running out of time. 

Admiral BIRD. Very reasonable. 

Mr. WEBER. I think so. 

Mr. Wieseltier. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. I think that by not releasing the hostages as 

was their foreign policy in the region, they were defying us and 

they were making it perfectly clear that the nuclear agreement 

would not affect the rest of the——

Mr. WEBER. So we are debating with an enemy who has clearly 

demonstrated, somebody said over 36 years, by sticking their finger 

in our eye and killing Americans, that they don’t care about us. 

They believe in a culture of death, whereas we believe in a culture 

of life. Okay. 

So when the administration goes in there and says they want the 

best deal, is it reasonable for them to say, ‘‘We will walk away from 

a bad deal’’? Was that reasonable? I think it is reasonable, wouldn’t 

we all agree, if it was a bad deal they would walked away from it? 

We are fixing to give them back their money. The administration 

did not extract promises for them to, A, stop exporting terrorism, 

stop the rhetoric on the United States and Israel must be destroyed, to stop supplying weapons over to Assad in Syria, exporting terrorism if you want to get technical. 

So I don’t think that is was reasonable when John Kerry said—

and I have a letter from him here dated September the 2nd, he 

talks about need to vote for this bill and all these good things are 

going to happen. And then he goes into on page 2 of this bill, and 

he basically defines, well, we are going to plus up Israel’s military 

capability, we are going to plus up people in the region, their military capability. 

Now, can you say arms race? Can you say that the destabilizing 

of that region is not going to get better, it is going to get worse? 

And to my friend Ted Deutch’s comments earlier about if these 

other countries come to us and say, ‘‘We want nuclear power,’’ how 

do we tell them that we have an administration who will not give 

energy companies over here a permit to build a nuclear power 

plant, but they will take American tax dollars and build one for our 

enemies? 

Gentlemen, I want to submit to you that is not reasonable. John 

Kerry and my company, in my estimation, didn’t use reason to get 

to this position. 

And so I understand the futility of thinking that somehow I 

can—and those that support this deal, I am sorry if this sounds 

crass, if they have bought into that hook, line, and sinker—we can’t 

reason somebody out of a position that they didn’t use reason to get 

into. 

47

Yes or no, General Wald, bad deal? 

General WALD. Again, I am not a politician. I will just say from 

a military perspective this is not putting us in a better position. 

Mr. WEBER. I am going to get to a point. 

Admiral Fallon, I take it you think it is yes because you say we 

have got to do something after 36 years. 

Admiral FALLON. I said given the alternative. 

Mr. WEBER. War is not the only alternative. We should have negotiated from power and strength. 

Vice Admiral Bird? 

Admiral BIRD. Yes, sir, I think it is a bad deal. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. Bad deal. 

Mr. WEBER. Bad deal. 

I don’t buy the idea that somehow war is the only other alternative. If you go back to World War II, Hitler violated the Treaty 

of Versailles in 1935 and began to plus up his military. The British 

signed a pact with him allowing him to do that, to rebuild the 

Luftwaffe, to rebuild their navy, and as a result the British had to 

withdraw from the Baltic area. We are in the process of doing the 

exact same thing with the Iranian regime. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, sir. 

Dr. Bera. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

As the chairman stated, this is our 30th hearing on this topic. 

I have had multiple individual meetings with passionate supporters of the deal and folks that are very concerned with the deal. 

And individuals have asked me, ‘‘How come you haven’t taken a position?’’ Because this is a very important negotiation and it is a 

very important crossroads, and there are both merits to this deal 

and there are shortcomings to the deal. 

And it is incredibly important, I think, as Admiral Fallon has 

pointed out. We do have to think about how we move forward, 

though, in terms of a very unstable region. 

The goal of this negotiation was to reduce or eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat. As Secretary Kerry has pointed out, as multiple folks 

have pointed out both in classified and unclassified settings, at a 

minimum it does reduce the threat for 15 years. And in this hearing it has been pointed out Iran is fairly close to being a threshold 

state at this juncture, if they are not already a threshold state. So 

I think that is a goal that has been achieved. 

Goal number two, is there enough in this verification regime? I 

think, as Secretary Moniz spoke personally to me as well as in this 

committee, has indicated he is satisfied on the nuclear issue that 

there is enough in the verification regime that if Iran does cheat 

on the nuclear issue that they will get caught. 

Goal number three and a concern of mine was, is there immediate sanctions relief? Is there a signing bonus? Again, as Secretary 

Lew has pointed out both in this committee and privately, there is 

no immediate sanctions relief. There is no trust in this. There has 

to be verification. Iran has to meet its deal, its portion of the deal, 

before there is any sanction relief. 

So those are some of the positives that are in here. 

48

Now the concerns. Concern number one, I don’t trust Iran. I expect that the Iranians will cheat, and they will likely cheat on the 

margins to test our resolve. And at this juncture I think it is incredibly important that both the United States and our allies have 

that resolve that when they do cheat we immediately hit them and 

send them a strong message. It may not be full sanctions being implemented, but that we send a message that this is not an acceptable behavior. 

As Ranking Member Engel pointed out in his testimony, at this 

juncture let’s be pragmatic. The deal is likely to move forward. So 

let’s make sure we as a body do what we have to do to make sure 

that we take the deal that is present and we send a strong message. 

Concern number two, Iran has not been a responsible nation. In 

fact, I think everyone on the panel, as well as all the members of 

this committee, understand that Iran has been an actor to destabilize the region. That is not what this deal was about in terms of 

sanctions against Hezbollah and others. I think most of us expect, 

as Iran’s economy improves, they likely will continue to fund these 

terrorist organizations and maybe increase funding. 

We as Congress, as well as the administration, have to do everything in our power to reassure our allies, particularly Israel, to 

make sure that they have what they need to counteract what potentially is increased destabilization, increased funding to 

Hezbollah, et cetera. 

Concern number three is also making sure that we take advantage of these 15 years. Even folks that are against the deal understand that it does reduce the nuclear threat. We must put ourselves in a better position 15 years from now should Iran pursue 

nuclear ambitions that we, if we have to intervene militarily, if we 

have to intervene in other ways, that we are in a better position 

to do so. 

Admiral Fallon, I will ask a quick question because I am running 

out of time. I think we all agree that Iran has destabilized the region. What would you suggest that we do, both as Congress as well 

as the administration, to work with our allies to mitigate potentially what is increased destabilization? 

Admiral FALLON. Well, one of the things that we have tried as 

a Nation, and certainly our diplomats and commanders in this region, that I think would be most helpful would be to try to convince 

our allies in the area to work together, to cooperate with one another, to have capability that could be united in the event that Iran 

backtracks on these things. 

It has been a very, very difficult challenge. They each have their 

own interests, their priorities, and so forth, and it has kind of fragmented their reactions to Iran to date. They wring their hands, 

want help, but they have to help themselves. 

One of the key points here for me in my experience is the idea 

that we are going to go over there and straighten this all out, we 

are going to fix all this and they are going to, these countries, is 

nonsense. They are going to have to fix it. We just have to help——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Admiral Fallon. 

Thank you, Dr. Bera. 

Mr. Brooks of Alabama. 

49

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I have some questions I am going to ask each of you to, and I 

would appreciate if you would answer them with either a ‘‘yes’’ or 

a ‘‘no’’ or an ‘‘I don’t know.’’ They are very simple questions. 

The first one deals with have you read the bill. I am talking 

about House Resolution 1191, Public Law 114–17, commonly 

known as the Corker Cardin bill, but more formally known as the 

‘‘Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.’’ And by way of reference, that is the bill that governs how Congress is considering 

this Iran nuclear agreement. 

General Wald, have you read it? 

General WALD. I haven’t read the whole thing. 

Mr. BROOKS. Admiral Fallon, have you read it? 

Admiral FALLON. Not the whole thing. 

Mr. BROOKS. Vice Admiral Bird, have you read it? 

Admiral BIRD. No, sir. 

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Wieseltier, you have read it? 

Mr. WIESELTIER. Yes, I have read it. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Now, for those of you who have not read it, and also to refresh 

your recollection for those who have, I am looking at paragraph 

(a)(1), which is a requirement imposed on the President of the 

United States by this agreement that the President signed: ‘‘Not 

later than 5 calendar days after reaching an agreement with Iran 

relating to the nuclear program of Iran, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership the 

agreement, as defined in subsection (h)(1), including all related materials and annexes.’’ And the agreement is, of course, the Iran nuclear agreement. 

So we have to go to another provision in the bill to find out what 

the heck the word ‘‘agreement’’ means. And so I turn to paragraph 

(h)(1), quote:

‘‘The term ‘agreement’ means an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits 

the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the 

United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any 

other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or 

other understandings.’’

So my question to each of you is, pursuant to this requirement, 

has the President properly submitted to the United States Congress all side agreements related to the Iran nuclear agreement? 

General Wald, as you understand the situation, has the President done that. 

General WALD. I have no idea. 

Mr. BROOKS. Admiral Fallon, yes, no, or I don’t know? 

Admiral FALLON. I believe that agreements that the U.S. has negotiated with Iran——

Mr. BROOKS. That is not what this says. It says side agreements 

with Iran and third parties. 

50

Admiral FALLON. That we have been a part of. 

Mr. BROOKS. Have all of those been produced? 

Admiral FALLON. That we, the U.S., has been a part of. 

Mr. BROOKS. No. That is not the requirement under the statute. 

All right. 

Vice Admiral Bird, do you know if all these side agreements with 

Iran and third parties have been provided to the United States 

Congress? 

Admiral BIRD. I read Mr. Pompeo’s editorial on the same thing. 

I do not know. I am not a lawyer. But I do think the Congress 

should review them all. 

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Wieseltier. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. I don’t know, but I have a hunch about what 

the answer is. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, with respect to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s secret agreement with Iran, I will represent to you 

that that has not been presented to me as a Member of the United 

States Congress, and in talking to my colleagues, it has also not 

been presented to them by the Obama administration, which 

means in turn that the Obama administration has failed to comply 

with the very law that it asked the United States Congress to sign. 

So my next question to you, if you know—well, for time brevity 

I see that I have only got a little bit, over a minute left, I will answer this question myself. 

The question is, what is the effect of Barack Obama’s failure to 

comply with the statute that he signed that governs our ability to 

review and/or approve this agreement? 

And if you go to paragraph (b)(3) of the agreement—excuse me, 

of the law—it says:

‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . prior to and 

during the period for transmission of an agreement in subsection (a)(1) and during the period for congressional review 

provided in paragraph (a) . . . the President may not waive, 

suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran under any 

provision of law.’’

And so unless you have something to the contrary, and I would 

welcome any illumination that you may have, it seems to me until 

such time as the President complies with the statute and provides 

the United States Congress all side agreements, he has no right to 

relieve any sanctions, and if he does so he is in violation of the law, 

which might be an impeachable offense. Do you have any comments in that regard? 

General WALD. No. 

Mr. BROOKS. Admiral Fallon. 

Admiral FALLON. Wouldn’t touch it. 

Mr. BROOKS. Vice Admiral Bird. 

Admiral BIRD. No, sir. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE [presiding]. All right. Lois Frankel of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for this robust debate. 

51

I have heard the number 15 a number of times. I have another 

way of looking at it. Fifteen seconds. That is how long a child who 

lives near the Gaza Strip in Israel has to take cover when a missile 

is shot into their city, 15 seconds. There have been over 10,000 

rockets fired by Hamas, with the support of Iran, into Israel. There 

are 100,000 missiles that Hezbollah has aimed at Israel with the 

help of Iran. 

We have been talking a lot about Israel. What about the children 

in Syria? They don’t even have a bomb shelter to run into. Barrel 

bombs with chlorine, with shrapnel dropped. We saw videos of children suffering from nerve gas poisoning right here in this meeting. 

All at the hands of Assad, who is being propped up by Iran. 

Listen, I applaud the President for trying a diplomatic settlement. I believe in a diplomatic settlement. I believe Iran should not 

have a nuclear weapon. But in my mind, the tradeoff is too great 

right now, to give billions of dollars to Iran, and not enough of a 

concession. So that is my take on it. 

But I do have a question, and I think this would help the public 

a lot in the discussion, which is if you could explain the relationship between Iran and Syria and Israel, and why it is you believe 

that Iran continues to prop up all this horrific terrorist activity. 

General WALD. Yeah, I mean, I think what you brought up is 

really a good point that probably none of us really understand for 

sure. But I think the point that I take from that is that we want 

to treat Iran like we think. They don’t think like us. And I think 

most people think: Well, they have to, they are human beings. 

They have a different culture, they have a different way of looking 

at things, they have different standards, they have different goals. 

And I think one of the biggest problems we have is we really don’t 

understand the Iranians. I think we——

Ms. FRANKEL. Excuse me, though, but don’t they have a regional 

mission? 

General WALD. The Iranians? 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yes. They have a——

General WALD. They want to be a regional hegemon, there is no 

doubt about it. But the motivation part is difficult. And I think one 

of the dangers we have when we go into negotiations sometimes is 

this is the way I wish it would, let’s act that way. It really isn’t. 

And I think the Iranians basically have a very limited reality from 

the standpoint of ethical truthfulness. 

Admiral FALLON. Opinion? 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yes. 

Admiral FALLON. I had a lot of those today. I will give you one 

more. Very pragmatic. Their allies and surrogates and henchmen 

are Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Syria goes the other way, they are cut 

off from them. Very difficult to get the kind of support into Lebanon given the Israeli control of the coast and the other border. So 

very pragmatically, if they lose Syria, their best buds over there 

and proxies now, they are in deep trouble. 

Admiral BIRD. I agree with General Wald and Admiral Fallon, I 

think Iran has regional hegemony, a Shia Crescent, if you will. 

They have a strategy that has no rules, no principles, no morals 

whatsoever. And their strategy, if you look at the last 15 years to 

52

date, has been brilliant, and I believe with this agreement it is 

furthered. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. I agree with what my colleagues have said and 

would add only that one of the reasons that some of us have been 

futilely agitating for the Obama administration to intervene in 

Syria 3 and 4 years ago was because we regarded the fall of the 

Assad regime as probably the greatest strategic wound we could inflict upon the regime in Tehran. Assad is their most important regional client, and as things now stand, there is a belt, an access, 

a corridor, whatever, of Iranian control, of Iranian influence from 

Tehran all the way to the Mediterranean, and that is one of the 

most important geopolitical facts about the region. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ms. Frankel. 

We go now to Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, would any of you disagree that Iran, over the last, 

say, 36 years regarding agreements with the West, nuclear or otherwise, including on this very current day, have been known and 

documented, acknowledged cheaters? Would anybody disagree with 

that? I am just trying for expediency sake. Okay. 

So, Admiral Fallon, you as well or not? 

Admiral FALLON. Yeah, I said that. I don’t trust these guys. 

What else is new? 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. All right. Fair enough. 

And so in particular, because you are one member of the panel 

that has found some accord with this agreement or at least a way 

to agree with it or think it is better than it isn’t, I want to have 

a conversation with you. But I don’t want to have this dialectic conversation because we have a difference of opinion. But for your part 

in it, I wonder what facts—and I pause there purposely—what 

facts lead you to believe, after 36 years—and thank you very much 

for your service, sir, you were right there, so you have an additional credibility that very few people have—but what facts lead 

you to your conclusion? Not suppositions of the future, not this 

Ayatollah will be dead, not——

Admiral FALLON. The conclusion? 

Mr. PERRY. Yes. 

Admiral FALLON. What conclusion? 

Mr. PERRY. The facts that you concluded that this is a good deal 

because of what might happen in the future in 15 years, that the 

young population might change and overthrow its government, the 

Ayatollah will be dead, and there won’t be a replacement. What 

facts? 

Admiral FALLON. So I wouldn’t characterize this as a good deal, 

but I would characterize it as the best alternative we have to stop 

them from a nuclear weapon. And the reason I think that this has 

a chance to succeed is because the detailed implementation, if they 

are carried out, of the stopping the two nuclear pipelines of uranium and plutonium give us the best chance of achieving what we 

really want——

Mr. PERRY. Arguably——

Admiral FALLON [continuing]. To stop the weaponing. 

53

Mr. PERRY. The timeline is 15 years maximum, right? Would you 

acknowledge that? 

Admiral FALLON. No. 

Mr. PERRY. If I agree with you on everything—by the way, and 

I don’t, because I think they are going to continue to cheat, but 

that is my supposition. 

Admiral FALLON. So do I. 

Mr. PERRY. But regardless, in 15 years it is open, the store is 

open, do whatever you want. 

Admiral FALLON. I don’t think so. I don’t think it is——

Mr. PERRY. Based on what? 

Admiral FALLON. Based on what? Based on the fact that if, in 

fact, this thing is implemented, as it has been laid out in its various steps, they will have had 15 years with a minimum amount 

of fissionable material, who knows what other things are going to 

happen? But the key thing is——

Mr. PERRY. But in 15 years——

Admiral FALLON. If I could, though——

Mr. PERRY. With all due respect——

Admiral FALLON [continuing]. You make this assumption that in 

15 years everything is going to be exactly the same as it is today. 

I don’t believe that for a second. 

Mr. PERRY. No, I don’t think it is going to be exactly the same, 

not the least of which are their increased military capability over 

that period of time and our diminished ability to reach out and 

touch them tactically because of their increased military prowess. 

But that having been said, I just have to disagree with you, and 

it seems to me that the facts don’t comport with reality here. And 

so to get some of the other folks involved—before I do that, though, 

a better deal. Let me ask you this. Wouldn’t a better deal include 

action, reaction. So they act, we have problems with them, not only 

the United States, but the Western civilized world has a problem 

with them, so they act in accordance with some of the demands. In 

other words, stop some of the terrorist things do this and do that. 

And then once you act, then we will react. But that is not what 

this deal is. Would not that, just as a simple structure, be a better 

deal? 

Admiral FALLON. But that is not part of the deal. It might well 

be, but that is not part of the deal. 

Mr. PERRY. But you said there is no better deal, but you just acknowledged just now that that could be a better deal if we structured it that way. 

Admiral FALLON. That is a fiction. That is a wish. 

Mr. PERRY. It is a fiction because we haven’t made it a reality. 

We have the possibility and the ability to make all that a reality. 

Admiral FALLON. I disagree. 

Mr. PERRY. All right. 

Let me ask you this. And Mr.—is it Wieseltier. How you pronounce your name? 

Mr. WIESELTIER. Wieseltier, yeah. 

Mr. PERRY. I am fascinated to get your answer on this, too. We 

have very different cultures, ideologies, theologies, et cetera. Is 

there a possibility that we will never, ever get along with Iran or 

this—the people that think like the people that are in charge in 

54

Iran? And if that is true, at what point down the line of this agreement, at what point will that be obvious to you and you will say 

we have to scuttle where we are and make the best of what we can 

and that we are never going to agree with these people? Is there 

some point, sir, Admiral? 

And if not, if you need to think about it, Mr. Wieseltier, is there 

some point. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. Well, look, I think I would be a little bit careful 

about painting cultural differences this grossly. We are human 

beings. They are human beings. We can understand each other. I 

mean, we can agree, we can disagree, they have their reasons, we 

have our reasons. But I am not worried that they are so far gone 

into some alien culture, or what someone said earlier, some culture 

of death. I mean, I don’t know what these things mean, and they 

veer toward kind of ugly prejudice, which I know you don’t intend, 

but one has to be careful. 

I think that what we already understand about the world view 

of this regime and about its history suffices to establish that it is 

our enemy, and it is the enemy of democracy, and it is the enemy 

of many states who are our allies, and it is the enemy of things 

that we cherish. I think it couldn’t be clearer. 

General WALD. Yeah, I would like to comment on that, too, if I 

might. 

Chairman ROYCE. General Wald, I am sorry, we are out of time. 

We are going to go to Gerry Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And picking up on your last point, Mr. Wieseltier. Is it unusual 

for the United States to negotiate with its adversaries? 

Mr. WIESELTIER. Depends when and about what. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Did we do it with the Soviet Union? 

Mr. WIESELTIER. About certain things we certainly did. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Was the Soviet Union dedicated to our destruction? 

Mr. WIESELTIER. In some ways ideologically it was, and it had 

the ability to destroy us. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Did it also engage in warfare and terrorism and 

insurgency at our expense? 

Mr. WIESELTIER. It did. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. Thank you. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. Well, hold up. May I say something about it? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. The difference between our approach to Iran in 

our negotiations and the approach toward the Soviet Union was 

this. This is now the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki Watch Accord. When it was proposed that the United States begin to press 

the Soviet Union on human rights during a period of intense arms 

control negotiations, there were people in favor of detente, a statesman rail, political people who said: You are out of your mind, the 

stakes are too high, the nuclear negotiations will collapse, we cannot go after them on moral questions, on human rights questions, 

on democracy. Those people lost. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. And we in fact did negotiate with them on both 

tracks, and the duality of those tracks is what is missing here——

55

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. 

Mr. WIESELTIER [continuing]. And what determined some of the 

outcomes there——

Mr. CONNOLLY. But there is also one big difference. We hadn’t 

had a cone of silence for 30 years. This is our first real substantive 

engagement with this country in a long time. And to me it is remarkable that actually we were able to negotiate an agreement like 

this, including with two would-be adversaries in various guises, 

Russia and China. 

Admiral Fallon, how close do you think, is it your assessment, 

Iran is to actually crossing that threshold as a nuclear state right 

now? Months? Years? 

Admiral FALLON. I think it is close, certainly inside of years, but 

I am also mindful of the couple of decades worth of they are going 

to have it next year or 2 years, I have heard that from——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Does the agreement in front of us roll back——

Admiral FALLON. Here is the key thing. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. We are going to have to watch our time, Admiral 

Fallon. I am not trying to interrupt you or be rude, but this chairman is going to put that gavel down in 2 minutes and 42 seconds. 

So I want to pursue a line of questioning with you, if you don’t 

mind. 

Admiral FALLON. Okay. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Does this agreement roll back existing nuclear 

capabilities? 

Admiral FALLON. It takes off the table the fundamental nuclear 

capability that Iran has been working hard to——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Does it reduce enriched material? 

Admiral FALLON. Of course. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Does it reduce the level of enrichment of what is 

left behind? 

Admiral FALLON. The amount left behind is a fraction of what is 

available to them. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And it reduces it to 3.67 percent. Is that not correct? 

Admiral FALLON. Correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Does it mothball a significant number of existing 

centrifuges? 

Admiral FALLON. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Does it change the equation at the plutonium 

production facility? 

Admiral FALLON. Stops it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Stops it. Does it make it harder or easier for Iran 

to develop a nuclear weapon? 

Admiral FALLON. At least it appears to be would be much more 

difficult. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And I heard the timetable some people want you 

to believe, want us all to believe, that somehow magically this all 

ends in 15 years and now we have created a guarantee for a nuclear Iran. Is that your view? 

Admiral FALLON. No, because there are parts of this arrangement that actually go well beyond that, in perpetuity in some 

cases. Again, do we trust them? No. We are going to have to 

try——

56

Mr. CONNOLLY. We didn’t trust the Soviets. Ronald Reagan said, 

‘‘doveryai, no proveryai,’’ trust, but verify. So we have no reason to 

trust them, that is why we create a, hopefully, verifiable and inspection-laden regime, right? 

Admiral FALLON. Or as my good friend and colleague Mike 

Mullen just said a couple of days ago, I read, distrust. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Distrust. 

Real quickly. The so-called—the military referred to kinetic option. When you look at, you know, other alternatives, a number of 

military have testified that the only real viable alternative—the notion that we are going to go back to the negotiating table and everyone is going to come back as one happy family after we renounce our own agreement and then ask them to start all over 

again, to me is delusional and very specious logic, if there is any 

logic at all. Would you agree with that? 

Admiral FALLON. I think the reality here is that the other countries have already decided. And, again, it is pretty busy commercial 

traffic into Tehran now. So sanctions are gone. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Forgive me for not giving you more time and others on the panel, but real quickly, would you describe the kinetic 

option? What is going to be entailed? If this fails, if we walk away 

from this successfully and the negotiating partners collapse, the 

military option, the kinetic option, what does it entail and what are 

the consequences, you as a former member of our military, fear? 

Admiral FALLON. Probably a little more pointed than that, actually had the responsibility for executing such a thing if it were ever 

called upon. So you can do all kinds of things militarily. We have 

overwhelming comparative power to these guys. We could hurt 

them badly, in my opinion. The idea that this would somehow, by 

dropping a number of bombs, remove the threat, I believe is total 

nonsense. 

We could remove it, and that would probably involve a very, very 

significant land force to go do and basically take care of things. But 

to do this all just with a bunch of bombs, I don’t think so. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Ted Poe of Texas. 

Mr. POE. The Ayatollah today tweeted: ‘‘Israel will not see the 

next 25 years. There will be nothing as a Zionist regime by the 

next 25 years.’’ The Ayatollah also has recently said more than 

once: ‘‘Death to America.’’ Seems to me that is their foreign policy. 

Is there any reason, General, that we should not believe the Ayatollah when he says, ‘‘Death to America, down with Israel in 25 

years,’’ or is that just a bunch of rhetoric? 

General WALD. You know, I have thought about this a lot, and 

I have heard this from people a lot, and they say: ‘‘That just is 

rhetoric. You just don’t know.’’

Mr. POE. Well, what do you think? 

General WALD. I don’t know. Frankly, my issue is if I was 100 

percent sure they were just saying that, it didn’t matter, then I 

wouldn’t care. I think there is a possibility. 

First of all, as was pointed out, they have no compulsion about 

killing our troops, our U.S. troops with some of the most horrendous weapons I have ever seen, these VIDs they have helped build, 

57

and are right behind that every time. The Quds Force commander 

the other day said the same thing you just mentioned. 

Mr. POE. So why this nuclear——

General WALD. They say that every day. If I am in Israel——

Mr. POE. I am sorry, general, I am reclaiming my time. I know 

I was just a sergeant in the Air Force, but I am reclaiming my 

time. 

General WALD. No, anyway, it doesn’t seem logical to us, but I 

don’t think we understand them. I would say you got to take it for 

what it is worth. 

Mr. POE. All right. 

Admiral, I will ask the Navy a question. 

Admiral FALLON. What is that? You passed on the Navy? 

Mr. POE. No, I didn’t say I would pass on the Navy. 

Let me move on and ask something else. Admiral Bird, let me 

ask you a couple of questions about the policy of Iran. We know, 

the world knows this deal is going on, and we have Iran making 

all of these statements. Assume everything in the deal takes place. 

Is the world going to be safer or less safe at the end of the day 

from a nuclear Iran? 

Admiral BIRD. Well, as I have testified, I think, arguably, in the 

short term, as Admiral Fallon would say, from a nuclear perspective we might be safer. In terms of the conventional and all the 

things I mentioned from asymmetric, less safe in the region, more 

destabilized. 

In the long term, we will have a nuclear Iran, which we have 

sanctioned, and we will be much less safe. 

Mr. POE. Do you think when the Ayatollah says, ‘‘Death to America,’’ he is serious or is that just some rhetoric? 

Admiral BIRD. I think he is serious on his tweeting and things 

he says, and if you will pardon my cynicism, he never agreed to not 

be that way in the deal. He just agreed to comply with this limitation for 15 years on nuclear weapons. 

Mr. POE. The inspection, if I understand this agreement, the inspection is going to be done by the Iranians. Is that right, Admiral 

Bird? 

Admiral BIRD. Sir, I don’t know. I know there is speculation. I 

think this goes to Mr. Issa’s questions about the secret agreement 

or at least not revealed to the Congress of the IAEA in Iran and 

what they have a deal to in terms of the Additional Protocol. 

Mr. POE. Don’t you think Congress ought to see this side agreement, however many they are, whatever it is, before we even decide whether or not it is good for the United States? 

Admiral BIRD. I absolutely do. 

Mr. POE. I think it is foolhardy that we would make a vote on 

such an important national security issue if we don’t see the side 

deals. It seems to me, though, the Iranians are going to be the ones 

that investigate the Iranians to see if the Iranians are cheating or 

not. I used to be a judge. That is like putting 12 burglars on a jury 

for trying a burglar. I have got problems with the Iranians investigating the Iranians about nuclear weapon development. 

Does anyone see in this agreement that scenario or is it some 

independent outside group? Admiral Fallon, what do you think? 

Admiral FALLON. Could I point out something, Congressman? 

58

Mr. POE. Just answer that question. I only have 5 minutes, and 

20 seconds left. Is it the Iranians going to be investigating the Iranians and we got to give them 24 days notice before we show up? 

Admiral FALLON. I don’t believe that. 

Mr. POE. You didn’t see that in the agreement? 

Admiral FALLON. I didn’t read it that way, no. 

Mr. POE. Did you read the agreement? 

Admiral FALLON. Sure. 

Mr. POE. Well, I read it that way. 

Admiral FALLON. Okay. 

Mr. POE. So let me just ask all four of you this question. I have 

got 4 seconds left. Should Congress approve this deal or not? 

General. 

General WALD. Going to make Iran more strong. 

Mr. POE. Admiral Fallon. 

Admiral FALLON. Congress should support implementation of 

this thing as the best alternative. 

Mr. POE. Admiral Bird. 

Admiral BIRD. Disapprove the deal, yes, sir. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. No. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. All right. We go now to Mr. Ted Yoho of Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, appreciate you for being here. 

I think so much has been said already today. Number one is, everything that we have already talked about, I think we are all in 

agreement that Iran is an enemy of the United States. We are all 

in agreement of that. 

Iran is the leading sponsor of state terrorism. Of the young men 

and women that have been killed or wounded in Afghanistan and 

Iraq, 70 percent came from IEDs, 90 percent of those came from 

Iran. 

And you just stated, Vice Admiral Bird, that this deal will make 

Iran stronger? 

General Wald, Admiral Fallon, with the release of the money, 

whether it is $50 billion or $100 billion, will it make them stronger? 

General WALD. I think that is the issue here, and I think the 

issue here is that we are not sure what we are going to get from 

a verification. And, yes, they will become stronger——

Mr. YOHO. I am going to talk about that. 

Admiral Fallon, will this make them stronger, give them this 

money? 

Admiral FALLON. I don’t believe so. 

Mr. YOHO. You don’t believe so? 

Admiral FALLON. No. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. Mr. Wieseltier. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. In non-nuclear and conventional measures of 

military strength, asymmetrical warfare, terrorism and so on, yes. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. So let’s look at where they are at right now 

without this money. They are funding terrorism around the world. 

I mean, as short as 3 years ago they plotted to kill the Saudi Ambassador on U.S. soil. So we have a good idea. 

59

And, Admiral Fallon, you said we can’t project into the future. 

It is kind of like que sera, sera, kind of a Doris Day song, you 

know, no offense to you. Hold on just a second. 

Admiral FALLON. I don’t believe that for a minute. 

Mr. YOHO. And you were saying——

Admiral FALLON. No, I am not clairvoyant. I don’t know that it 

is. 

Mr. YOHO. You served for 40 years in this country, and I thank 

you for your service, and I know strategically in the military you 

project 5, 10, 15, 20, maybe 100 years, hopefully, down the future. 

All one has to do to look at one’s past is to look at the present 

situation. You see Iran, the leading sponsor of terrorism around the 

world, death to America, death to Israel, they are funding 

Hezbollah, Hamas. They have already said that they are going to 

retrofit over 100,000 scud-type missiles for Hezbollah with pinpoint 

accuracy laser technology. They are already saying that. They are 

already going to rebuild the tunnels. We see what they are doing 

in Central and South America. 

So we see their present situation. We can predict what they are 

going to do in the future by what they are doing today. And, I 

mean, it is pretty clear they are an enemy of the United States, 

they are going to get stronger from this. And, you know, as far as 

an option, we need to walk away from the table, we need to run 

away, and the world, I think, will follow us. 

Yes, there is economic development in there, but if we don’t walk 

away from this deal there will be no snapback, and that was a fallacy anyways. Walk away, bring them back, put the sanctions back 

on, and when they are ready to negotiate they will release our four 

Americans, they will denounce terrorism, they will stop stating 

what they are doing, and this threat around the world. And it goes 

back to Sharia—not Sharia law, but Islamic law, the law of 

Taqiyyah, lie, cheat, and deceit every chance you can if it advances 

the Islamic state. And that is what they have done for thousands 

of years. 

And, Mr. Wieseltier——

Mr. WIESELTIER. No, Congressman, I have to say that my opposition, my view of the Iranian Government has been perfectly clear. 

But for the record, I want to note that Christians and Jews have 

lied and cheated for thousands of years too, that the explanation 

of this in terms of their religion seems to me to be inadequate and 

really cannot explain what it is that——

Mr. YOHO. I am not going to disagree with that, but I am not 

negotiating with a Jewish state or a Christian state that is going 

to get a nuclear bomb. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. Right. I just suggest that——

Mr. YOHO. According to our preamble of the Constitution, the 

number one goal of the United States of America is for the common 

defense of my country. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. Absolutely. 

Mr. YOHO. And that is what I am worried about. 

Mr. WIESELTIER. Absolutely. 

Mr. YOHO. And this is going to—you all agree that this is going 

to make Iran stronger. 

60

Mr. WIESELTIER. My point is only that we need to analyze Iran, 

even in our opposition to it, in an intellectually responsible manner. 

Mr. YOHO. And intellectually responsible, this is a bad deal, we 

need to run away it from. 

And I am going to yield back, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I 

just wanted to get that out. 

I appreciate the service all of you did, and I would hope you 

would help us turn this deal down and make a better deal. 

The Corker and Cardin amendment or bill, we have already 

passed the deadline of that. This is a moot point. We are beyond 

that, and we need to start over. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We stand adjourned. I want to thank the 

panel one more time for your testimony here today, and also thank 

you very much for your service. Admiral and Vice Admiral, General, thank you for your service to this country. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(61)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

62

f


96048n.eps
63


96048m-1.eps
64

f


96048m-2.eps
65


96048e-1.eps
66

Æ


96048e-2.eps