[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
 
 IRAN'S ESCALATING THREATS: ASSESSING U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAN'S MALIGN 
                               ACTIVITIES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

    SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, AND CENTRAL ASIA

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           September 14, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-105

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
        
        
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
        


       Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                            docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov
                       
                       
                       
                       
                          ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 54-431PDF           WASHINGTON : 2024
               
                       
                       
                       

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking 
JOE WILSON, South Carolina               Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California             GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida                  AMI BERA, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado                   JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee             TED LIEU, California
ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
YOUNG KIM, California                COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        ANDY KIM, New Jersey
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan              SARA JACOBS, California
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
    American Samoa                   SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, 
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                GREG STANTON, Arizona
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida               JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey         JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
CORY MILLS, Florida                  JIM COSTA, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              JASON CROW, Colorado
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JOHN JAMES, Michigan
KEITH SELF, Texas

                                     
                

                    Brendan Shields, Staff Director

                    Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director
                                 ------                                

  The Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia

                           JOE WILSON, Chair
BRIAN MAST, Florida                  DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota, Ranking 
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee                  Member
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 BRAD SHERMAN, California
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia

                                                   

                     Gabriella Zach, Staff Director
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESSES

Roule, Norman, Former National Intelligence Manager for Iran.....
Ben Taleblu, Behnam, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of 
  Democracies....................................................
Alinejad, Masih, Author and Activist.............................
Maloney, Suzanne, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy, 
  Brookings Institution..........................................     4

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    XX
Hearing Minutes..................................................    XX
Hearing Attendance...............................................    xx

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions submitted for the record..................


 IRAN'S ESCALATING THREATS: ASSESSING U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAN'S MALIGN 
                               ACTIVITIES

                      Thursday, September 14, 2023

                          House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on the Middle East, North
                           Africa and Central Asia,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in 
room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. The Subcommittee 
on the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia will come to 
order.
    The purpose of the hearing is to discuss Iran's escalating 
threats and assess the U.S. policy toward Iran's malign 
activities. I want to recognize for myself an opening 
statement.
    We will then have a very positive opening statement from 
our ranking member, Dean Phillips. And so--and, hey, even as we 
begin this hearing I think continues a tradition of 
bipartisanship substantially and because we are so hopeful to 
work together, particularly to work together for peace and 
stability in the Middle East, and truly hope for positive 
change for the brave people of Iran.
    With that in mind, ladies and gentlemen, the threats posed 
by the Iranian regime have never been greater. Yet, the policy, 
sadly, of the Administration have emboldened the regime.
    By single mindedly pursuing revival of the disastrous 
nuclear agreement, forgetting the IEDs that were used to kill 
Americans and forgetting the drones that are currently being 
used to kill Ukrainians while ignoring the regime's mass 
exportation of missiles and drones, terrorism, and human rights 
violations the Administration puts America and our allies in a 
perilous position.
    There is bipartisan concern with the direction of the Biden 
Administration policy toward Iran. On September 16th, 2022, the 
world was horrified by the murder of Mahsa Amini, a vibrant 22-
year-old woman who was arrested by the morality police of the 
regime for the improper wearing of a hajib.
    Every day brave Iranians young and old from all different 
backgrounds have peacefully protested the draconian and brutal 
regime under which they're forced to live.
    Our message to them today is that you are seen, admired, 
and freedom will one day be yours, and in particular the 4,000 
protests in the last year. It should be recognized there have 
been 20,000 arrests of persons in every corner of Iran. But 
even worse, we know--we can identify that there have been 550 
young Iranians murdered by the regime.
    With that in mind, several factors contribute to the 
regime's ability to continue its murderous agenda against the 
people of Iran and its global agenda of death to America, death 
to Israel.
    Sanctions are only effective when enforced. President Biden 
states that he stands with the people of Iran but actions speak 
louder than words. Imposing weak sanctions on a few dozen 
officials while turning a blind eye to the evasion of oil 
sanctions is just symbolism.
    Iranian oil exports have never been higher and the Chinese 
Communist Party is the number-one client as it's now proceeding 
to accelerate the largest peacetime military buildup in world 
history.
    The release of $6 billion to the regime, building on the 
$10 billion available from Iraq, will fund the regime's mass 
murder. Money is fungible and it is willfully negligent to 
assert that the regime plans to use the money for humanitarian 
purposes.
    This reversal of long-standing American policy of not 
paying for release of hostages puts a bounty on the heads of 
Americans around the world.
    President Trump secured the release of American citizens 
taken hostages Xiyue Wang and Michael White from the notorious 
Evin prison without paying ransom. We were grateful to have 
Xiyue advising Congress, advising our strategic competition and 
national security.
    America has traditionally stood by the position of a strong 
national defense but not a penny for tribute. The regime in 
Tehran actively provides weapons and strategic support to war 
criminal Putin and plans to build a drone factory in Moscow.
    The ransom paid to the regime amounts to funding Putin's 
murder of Ukrainians as Putin, equally sadly, oppresses the 
people of Russia itself. Many of these drones have been 
manufactured using commercially available components from the 
United States and Europe.
    The House must act to pass export control legislation to 
prevent products of American ingenuity to be used by 
terrorists. Our allies and strategic partners in the region, 
sadly, are pursuing diplomatic relations with Iran largely due 
to concerns about America's reliability as a partner for 
regional security.
    The Administration has insulted our Arab allies and has 
held up critical requests for defense equipment to protect 
against Iranian-backed terrorist attacks. Iran's missile and 
drone programs are the cornerstone of the regime's leverage 
against our partners in the region.
    Iran has the largest missile arsenal in the region and was 
completely unaddressed in the nuclear deal. These missiles are 
supplied to Iran's terrorist proxies in Syria, Iraq, the 
Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza.
    The capabilities and quantity of missiles launched by the 
regime's terrorist proxies multiply every year. The October 
sunset of prohibitions on Iran's missile activities require 
action to prevent the largest State sponsor of terrorism from 
mainstreaming its testing and transfer of missiles.
    Behnam Taleblu, one of our witnesses today, authored a 
comprehensive monograph outlining the development and strategic 
significance of Iran's ICBM program. The recommendations 
outlined have been critical in modern--informing modern and 
effective policy to counter this threat and I urge my 
colleagues to review it. It's an excellent presentation that 
the people of the world need to know.
    Repeated failure to enforce visa sanctions have resulted in 
Iranians living abroad being targeted by the regime henchmen. 
We're told their families will be imprisoned, interrogated, and 
tortured. One of our witnesses, Iranian-American journalist 
Masih Alinejad, understands this threat too well.
    Exiled from Iran for her human rights activities she has 
been a target of attempted kidnappings and assassination plots 
by Iran officials on American soil. Iranian president mass 
murderer Ebrahim Raisi will once again attend the U.N. General 
Assembly meeting in New York next week.
    I urge the passage of our bipartisan bill the REGIME Act to 
stop regime officials who hate and threaten America from 
enjoying the luxuries they seek to destroy.
    This Administration fails to see the big picture. The 
Iranian regime, war criminal Putin, and the Chinese Communist 
Party are working together to destroy America and our allies. 
The regime's cooperative agreements with war criminal Putin and 
the Chinese Communist Party we see routinely engage in joint 
military drills and exercises harassing American ships and 
jets.
    America must act by implementing multi-pronged policies 
targeting Iranian terrorism, missile and drone proliferation, 
and maximizing support for the efforts of the Iranian people 
seeking political change and survival.
    Our adversaries are playing the long game and the existence 
of America depends on doing the same, and I know it will be 
bipartisan that we work together understanding and recognizing 
that we are in a conflict we did not choose.
    It actually began February the 24th, 2022, with the 
invasion by war criminal Putin of Ukraine where we have a 
situation of the dictatorships acting by rule of gun opposing 
the democracies' rule of law.
    And I thank our witnesses for their time and expertise and 
I yield to Ranking Member Dean Phillips for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Chair Wilson, and to our esteemed 
witnesses today.
    Some of you know that Chair Wilson and I just returned from 
a trip to the Middle East visiting Israel, Turkey, and Saudi 
Arabia. Rest assured the issues about which we will speak today 
were front and center in every meeting at every moment during 
our trip.
    Now, I was not a Member of Congress when the JCPOA--the 
Iran deal--came before Congress, and while it is clear that the 
deal was not perfect and did not address all of Iran's 
nefarious activities I do know that since President Trump's 
unilateral withdrawal from the agreement in 2018 Iran has 
significantly advanced its nuclear program, U.S. credibility 
has been diminished in certain areas, and we have disappointed 
a number of our allies.
    But instead of litigating and discussing the merits of the 
JCPOA and why that unilateral withdrawal harmed our interests 
I'd rather focus on what we do now that we are here.
    When dealing with Iran I believe it's clear that the regime 
poses a present danger to the United States of America.
    First, Iran is the world's leading State sponsor of terror. 
Its regional proxy groups have attacked U.S. forces in the 
region at least 83 times in just the past 2 years and continue 
to threaten our dear friend and ally Israel, the only Jewish 
nation in the entire world.
    Second, the regime has embraced the war criminal Vladimir 
Putin, transferring armed drones to Russia for use in the 
country's illegal and unjust war in Ukraine, as the chairman 
has already spoken about.
    In return, Russia is now offering Iran an unprecedented 
level of military and technological support that will make it 
even more dangerous for the world.
    Three, Iran's nuclear program is now more advanced than it 
has ever been. According to the IAEA, in at least one instance 
Iran has enriched a small batch of uranium to 84 percent, just 
1 percentage point short of weapons-grade purity. They've also 
amassed enough enriched fissile material for several bombs.
    Four, finally, this Saturday will mark the 1-year 
anniversary of the death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of Iran's 
morality police. Her tragic death sparked mass protests across 
Iran, as we all know, with women and girls at the helm 
demanding dignity, respect, and change.
    The regime responded with brutal repression, resulting in 
more than 600 Iranians killed and nearly 22,000 arrests. Such 
behavior and abuse of power is unjustifiable and the U.S. must 
do everything in its power to combat these practices, ensure 
U.S. national security, and support the oppressed Iranian 
people.
    I firmly believe that diplomacy--I'll say it again--
diplomacy must be at the core of any engagement, not only with 
Iran but also with all of our allies and adversaries around the 
world.
    Without the ability to break bread, to see each other as 
human beings, no progress, in my estimation, can ever be made. 
The U.S. should never close the door to diplomacy if it helps 
secure our national interests.
    The Biden Administration's recent decision to negotiate 
with Iran is an example of this. The Administration made a 
tough decision, in my estimation, to allow Iran to receive $6 
billion in frozen oil revenue for humanitarian purposes in 
exchange for the release of five Americans wrongly held in 
Iran, including Siamak Namazi, Morad Tahbaz, and Emad Shargi.
    This understanding has also deescalated tension with Iran 
on multiple fronts, and while we have not yet crossed that 
finish line I am hopeful that this modest diplomatic effort 
will lead to more understanding and, most importantly, less 
instability.
    I'll just say it again. On the surface, I understand the 
questions about the $6 billion. It is my hope, it is my 
expectation, that this is a baby step--a carrot, if you will--
to reduce this behavior, provide an incentive to modify 
behavior, moving forward.
    It's also clear that diplomacy alone will not achieve our 
objectives. The U.S. must pair diplomatic engagement with very 
tough sanctions enforcement, international accountability, and 
very robust military deterrence.
    That is why the Biden Administration maintains crippling 
sanctions on Iran's economy, its nuclear weapons program, human 
rights violators, and on the entities transferring money and 
weapons to Iranian proxies.
    The U.S. has aggressively pursued international 
accountability for Iran including supporting the removal of 
Iran from the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women and 
establishing a fact-finding investigation into human rights 
abuses in Iran at the U.N. Human Rights Council.
    Finally, the Biden Administration has repeatedly stated 
that all options remain on the table to prevent Iran from 
acquiring a nuclear weapon, something on which all of us--and I 
say it again--all of us agree.
    They have deployed additional military assets to the Gulf 
and actively engaged with regional partners to ensure that 
military preparedness and deterrence are in the mix, including 
standing up a maritime task force to deter Iran from seizing 
commercial vessels or transporting illicit goods.
    Let me be clear. The Iranian regime continues to pose a 
significant threat to the United States of America and these 
actions alone will not address all aspects of Iran's malign 
behavior.
    But by being clear eyed about the threat, by working with 
our partners and allies to coordinate an international response 
to Iran's actions, and by using a multi-pronged strategy to 
include sanctions enforcement, international accountability, 
military deterrence, and diplomacy I do believe we will 
ultimately prevail in making the Middle East and the United 
States safer and more prosperous for all.
    With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back my 
time, which is expired.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Dean 
Phillips, and, indeed, our travel throughout the Middle East 
last week to Jerusalem, to Ankara, Istanbul, to Riyadh it was a 
bipartisan exercise of working together for the American 
people.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan, 
Mr. John Moolenaar, be allowed to sit at the dais and to 
participate following all other members in today's hearing. 
Without objection, so ordered.
    We're pleased today to have distinguished witnesses with 
us--Mr. Norman Roule, the former national intelligence manager 
for Iran.
    We also have Mr. Behnam Ben Taleblu, who--from the 
Foundation of Defense of Democracies. Next we will hear from 
the journalist and activist Masih Alinejad and, finally, we 
have Suzanne Maloney from the Brookings Institution.
    And thank you for being here today. Your full statements 
will be made part of the record and we ask that each of you 
keep your spoken remarks to 5 minutes, and it will be--we have 
got an excellent timekeeper today and so we'll make sure this 
is done properly to allow time for members' questions.
    I want to recognize now Mr. Norman Roule for his opening 
statement.

STATEMENT OF NORMAN ROULE, FORMER NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE MANAGER 
                            FOR IRAN

    Mr. Roule. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Phillips, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear today as a member of this panel.
    This is a consequential time for an Iran policy review. 
September 16 will mark the first anniversary of the cruel death 
of Mahsa Amini and the beginning of months of unrest in which 
Iran's people, especially its women and girls, inspired the 
world with their heroism.
    Iran's nuclear enterprise now looks precisely like what a 
country would build if it planned to weaponize. The scale of 
Iran's terrorism exceeds any terrorist threat to the United 
States and its partners since 9/11. Iran's militias 
destabilized the Middle East and its drones have killed 
countless Ukrainian civilians.
    As you review policy options it might be helpful to 
consider how Iran's leaders view their world today. 
Unfortunately, events of the last 2 years give them reason for 
some confidence.
    Russia's invasion of Ukraine fractured great power unity 
and reinforced Western unwillingness to risk another 
international crisis.
    China's efforts to undermine the international order found 
an eager partner in the Islamic Republic. Rhetoric and minor 
sanctions dominated the international community's response to 
the alarming expansion of Iran's nuclear program and 
stonewalling of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the 
IAEA.
    A similar response followed the torture and execution of 
peaceful protesters, hostage taking, piracy in international 
waters, and repeated attempts to murder or kidnap U.S. persons 
in the homeland and journalists in the United Kingdom.
    The West stood, largely, silent as Iran and its proxies 
used Iranian missiles and drones against civilian targets in 
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
    Nonetheless, Iran's leaders must view their future with 
deep concern. Much like the final years of the Soviet Union, 
the Islamic Republic is sustained by coercion and a stale 
ideology that masks rigged elections, corruption, incompetence, 
and violence against a brave people.
    The social and economic successes of the United Arab 
Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain pose a direct threat to the 
Islamic Republic, much as the progress of the United States and 
Europe sapped the foundations of the Soviet Union.
    We should ask next what Iran's goals will be in coming 
years. First, the Islamic Republic requires sufficient 
stability to enable post revolutionary hardliners to retain 
power upon the death of Supreme Leader Khamenei.
    Next, the Raisi Administration will likely maintain an 
assertive, even confrontational foreign policy to splinter 
adversary coalitions and erode the entire international 
sanctions regime.
    Tehran likely believes that a policy of calibrated and low 
accost aggression will achieve strategic concessions from a 
West convinced that confrontation with Iran could ignite a 
conventional conflict.
    In the long term Iran aspires to be a, if not the, regional 
hegemon able to pressure the global economy through violence at 
the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab maritime checkpoints.
    Finally, Iran is unlikely to agree to long-term limits on 
its nuclear program or even significant reversal of nuclear 
achievements but it will likely use the prospect of progress in 
nuclear talks as a shield against international pressure 
responding to its nonnuclear aggression.
    The decision to weaponize will remain dependent on its 
assessment of whether or not it can do so without discovery. 
Iran will likely continue to improve its missile program, 
including missile technology, to threaten the United States.
    I believe three issues are likely to dominate the Iran 
challenge in coming months.
    First, Iran will seek to prevent a repeat of the 2022 
protest. Even as we speak Iran's security forces are stifling 
commemoration of last year's protest using every available tool 
of State coercion. Another major outbreak of country wide 
unrest, however, is inevitable.
    Second, Iran may temporarily restrain its nuclear expansion 
but further testing of Western nuclear red lines is likely. 
Tehran has used the last 2 years of negotiations to achieve 
progress that in the past would have seen sufficient to justify 
Western military action.
    Iran has failed to follow through on multiple agreements 
with the IAEA and blocked IAEA verification. The IAEA will 
increasingly question its own ability to assess that Iran's 
nuclear program remains peaceful.
    Third, Iran's hostage industry will continue. The ongoing 
hostage deal is welcome news to U.S. hostages and their long-
suffering families and hostage diplomacy is difficult and we 
should thank those involved.
    But the deal is flawed and carries dark consequences. The 
deal does nothing to halt further hostage taking but confirms 
that doing so brings financial and political benefits.
    This deal leaves people behind. Dozens of hostages 
remaining in Iran including U.S. green card holder Shahab 
Dalili, longtime U.S. resident Jamshid Sharmahd, and many 
Europeans.
    The deal's financial relief allows Iran to divert resources 
previously intended for humanitarian purchases to its security 
forces, missile programs, proxy groups, and terrorism. The 
relief also weakens existing sanctions, and, last, future 
sanctions will now take longer to achieve their effects.
    I would like to close with several brief suggestions for 
improving the execution of Iran policy.
    First, I urge you to develop a bipartisan approach to Iran 
similar to our actions on China. The designation of a 
bipartisan Select Committee on China provides a valuable 
template for a structure to address Iran. Bipartisan unity will 
strengthen our credibility with our partners and the message of 
deterrence we send to Iran.
    Next, Congress should seek unclassified annual reports on 
Iran's support for terrorism, its global militia and military 
footprint, and the financial impact of sanctions to include 
sanctions relief.
    The comprehensive security integration and prosperity 
agreement signed with Bahrain yesterday is an important step. 
It appropriately recognizes the value of U.S. partnership with 
Bahrain and also provides a template for use with other 
regional partners.
    We should expand our security relations with Saudi Arabia, 
the UAE, and other Gulf allies as doing so will increase 
regional deterrence against Iran.
    Finally, the time has come to restrict travel by U.S. 
persons and residents to Iran. Although we should encourage 
travel by Iranians to the United States, we should restrict 
travel saving the most compelling humanitarian instances.
    Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your 
comments and questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Roule follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.038
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.039
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.040
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.041
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.042
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.043
    
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Roule.
    And I now recognize Mr. Taleblu for his opening statement.

STATEMENT OF BEHNAM BEN TALEBLU, SENIOR FELLOW, FOUNDATION FOR 
                     DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES

    Mr. Taleblu. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Phillips, 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the 
Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank thank you for 
inviting me to testify.
    It is an honor to present my analysis alongside Norman 
Roule, Masih Alinejad, and Suzanne Maloney, all distinguished 
individuals who have greatly informed our national conversation 
on Iran policy.
    A hearing on the Iran challenge could not be timelier. This 
month marks the 1-year anniversary of nationwide protests 
against the Islamic Republic, protests touched off by the 
killing of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian Kurdish woman, by 
Iran's morality police.
    Since Mahsa's murder Iran saw the largest ever protests 
since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, touching all 30 provinces in 
over 150 different cities, towns, and villages at its height.
    These protests do not only seek an end to discriminatory 
female dress codes. They are part and parcel of a larger 
sustained nationwide uprising since at least 2017 seeking an 
end to the Islamist and authoritarian regime in Tehran. More 
protests will continue.
    The main question at this juncture for U.S. policy 1 year 
later then is is it ready to stand with the Iranian people in 
practice and not just principle and is it prepared to develop a 
more coherent Iran policy that merges strategies, values, and 
interests.
    To date the Biden Administration's Iran policy has largely 
focused on nuclear diplomacy for what was initially a better 
than identical and now significantly more circumscribed nuclear 
accord than the 2015 nuclear deal called the JCPOA.
    Recent ransom payments may be paving the way for what is 
fast emerging as a lesser and unwritten understanding that 
circumvents Congress. Also, as reported, it would lock in 
rather than roll back Iran's illicit nuclear capabilities and 
infrastructure.
    Paying ransom to the world's foremost State sponsor of 
terrorism also will not foster an end to hostage taking, which 
the Islamic Republic has engaged in since its inception.
    Worse, at least three U.S. nationals--Shahab Dalili, Afshin 
Vatini, and Jamshid Sharmahd as defined by the Levinson Act 
were excluded from the current deal and remain hostage in Iran.
    The Sharmahd case is particularly worrisome as he was 
kidnapped abroad in 2020. Since then, IRGC-affiliated media 
have attempted to use his foreign capture and domestic death 
sentence to silence critics.
    Calls for kidnapping and punishments were even extended to 
American think tankers such as myself and my current and former 
Iranian-American colleagues at FDD Saeed Ghasseminejad and 
Alireza Nader.
    Elsewhere, U.N. prohibitions on Iran's ballistic missile 
activities as well as European sanctions against the Iranian 
nuclear missile and military entities are set to lapse on 
October 18th.
    While the EU and U.K. are expected based on reports to 
defend most of their sovereign nonproliferation sanctions, 
absent a full snap back at the U.N. Security Council U.N.-based 
penalties will still sunset. This will leave Tehran politically 
unconstrained when it comes to ballistic missile testing and 
transfers and as if already testing the waters, in a historic 
first last month at an arms exhibition in Moscow Iran displayed 
a close-range ballistic missile.
    As a reminder, Iran is home to the largest ballistic 
missile arsenal in the Middle East. Over the past decade it has 
made significant improvements to survivability, mobility, and 
the precision of this force.
    Iran's newfound capabilities coupled with America's 
nonexistent or insufficient response to past ballistic missile, 
cruise missile, and drone operations by itself and its proxies 
will drive more, not fewer, tests, transfers and military 
operations.
    Last September, for example, in another historic first an 
Iranian ballistic missile strike on northern Iraq killed a U.S. 
citizen. America did not respond.
    Faced with these and other challenges outlined in my 
written testimony, Congress can better shape U.S. policy toward 
Iran in accordance with four basic tenets.
    First, do no harm. Washington cannot afford to offer Tehran 
another financial and political lifeline that sets back 
American policy.
    Second, connect the dots. In an era of great power 
competition and a rising tide of domestic isolationism the 
American public deserves to know exactly how and why the Iran 
threat matters.
    Policymakers should continue to highlight Iran's drone 
transfers to Russia for use against Ukraine and China's role in 
bolstering Iran's military, nuclear, and missile capabilities 
through continued illicit oil imports.
    Three, bridge the gap. A web of multilateral sanctions 
against the same target can help impede Iranian illicit 
activity and send a strong deterrent message. For example, 
following Europe, the U.S. could sanction Iran's Press TV, an 
English language propaganda outlet. Similarly, Washington 
should help Europe bolster its drone and missile sanctions 
against Iranian defense industry subsidiaries.
    And four, last but certainly not least, support brave 
Iranians. Standing with the Iranian people means making sure 
they can always access the internet whenever blocked off by the 
regime and can benefit from a strike fund whenever labor 
strikes are married or merged with domestic street protests.
    In addition to offering specific military, economic, and 
diplomatic policy recommendations in my written testimony I 
have also aggregated 10 bills in various stages of the 
legislative process that can bolster the U.S. position on Iran 
and highlight the leadership of the 118th Congress.
    Among them are the MAHSA Act, the Fight Crime Act, the 
REGIME Act, the SHIP Act and SISA. These bills contain strong 
missile technology procurement and proliferation sanctions, 
sanctions on entities refining or storing Iranian crude oil, 
and sanctions against regime elites for rights violations, 
among many other helpful measures.
    Thank you for your time and attention today and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Taleblu follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.029
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.030
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.031
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.032
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.033
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.034
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.035
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.036
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.037
    
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Taleblu.
    And we now recognize Ms. Alinejad for her opening 
statement.

        STATEMENT OF MASIH ALINEJAD, AUTHOR AND ACTIVIST

    Ms. Alinejad. Thank you so much, and I want to--Chairman 
Wilson, Ranking Member Phillips, and members of the committee, 
I want to start by thanking you, especially these days that we 
see the news of Iran being fade out from mainstream media 
because as we sit here today the Islamic Republic of Iran 
doubled its efforts to crack down on protesters, especially on 
women and the family members of more than 70 people who got 
killed last year.
    They got arrested and right now they are in prison, 
especially the parents of those who got executed for the crime 
of crying for justice.
    A year ago when Mahsa Jina Amini, a 20-year-old woman from 
Kurdistan was killed in the hands of morality police in Iran, 
it has sparked a revolution in Iran. She was beaten to death 
while she was in the custody.
    Thousands of Iranian women actually take off their hijab in 
solidarity with Mahsa and her family. Shoulder to shoulder with 
men they took to the streets across Iran. More than 700 
innocent protesters got killed. Dozen are in the death row 
right now that I'm talking to you.
    Iranian woman knew that any of them could be Mahsa Amini. 
The Iranian people by their actions showed how much they detest 
the gender apartheid regime and its Sharia laws. But their 
demands were not limited just to calling for an end to 
compulsory hijab. The demand was clear--an end for Islamic 
Republic.
    I have often compared compulsory hijab to the Berlin Wall 
and I still believe that if we tear this wall down the Islamic 
Republic won't exist. The regime cracked down hard, not only 
arresting people--22,000 people--but actually targeting school 
girls with chemical attacks. This is exactly what Boko Haram 
did to its own girls and Taliban did the same.
    The regime even conducted terrorism against its own 
population by deliberately using not only chemical attack, 
raping girls in prison, raping teenagers--teenage boys and 
girls in prison. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not only one 
of the most brutal regimes in the world but also one of the 
greatest threats to the region, to Europe, and to the national 
security of the United States of America.
    Since its inception in 1979 the Islamic Republic has 
constantly targeted individuals who voice dissent against the 
government's policies both domestically and abroad. More than 
500 innocent dissidents were the target of kidnapping plot and 
assassination plot on European soil.
    I still get goosebumps myself that these are happening not 
inside Iran, abroad on European soil, and still the European 
government legitimized the murderous regime of Iran.
    After more than four decades in power without any 
meaningful reform the character of the Islamic Republic is 
unlikely to change, the persecution of women, ethnic group in 
Iran, and religious minorities, LGBT people, form the core 
ideology of the regime. Recently, the regime has grown bolder, 
threatening Americans on U.S. soil in operations that I believe 
are nothing short of a declaration of war.
    I would like to illustrate this by sharing just a bit about 
my own experience. I'm a survivor of kidnapping plot and 
assassination plot. I could have been Jamshid Sharmahd right 
now on the death row in Iran.
    In July last year, a man armed with AK-47 came in front of 
my house to kill me. Got arrested by the FBI. He was not alone. 
There were three men from criminal gangs from Eastern Europe 
hired by the Islamic Republic trying to kill me.
    But what bothers me and millions of Iranian people that was 
not the first time. First time they attempt to kidnap me on 
U.S. soil and because of the weakness of the American--the 
Biden Administration the Islamic Republic got encouraged to 
hire criminals.
    The Biden Administration's weak responses is not putting me 
at risk. It's putting the lives of all Americans at risk and 
signal to the Islamic Republic that actually you can come and 
target more American dissidents. Imagine if the killer opened 
fire in front of my house. How many of Americans, my neighbors, 
would have been killed on U.S. soil?
    Don't get me wrong. I want to say that I do not have fear 
for my own life but I want to be alive and to see Iranian 
people freed from religious dictatorship. But I also care 
deeply about the national security of my beloved adopted 
country, the United States of America.
    The Administration has only taken token measure to punish 
the Islamic Republic, always careful not to antagonize the 
ayatollahs. Their condemnation of the kidnapping attempt was 
vaguely worded and showed weakness. That is why the Islamic 
Republic hired criminals.
    I met with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan last 
year. He promised that the United States of America will 
protect and defend its citizens. Today I am here, that when 
Biden--President Biden says that we stand with the people of 
Iran we the people of Iran really do not want him and his 
Administration to stand with us. Please sit down with your own 
allies and make concrete decision to isolate kidnappers and the 
killers of the Islamic Republic.
    I am here to actually share a secret with you. The White 
House warned me earlier this year that there have been more 
than 31 threats against my life on U.S. soil, and in an email 
the Administration strongly advised me to go into witness 
protection.
    If none of you knows what witness protection means, it 
means that I have to change my identity. I have to change my 
Social Security number. I have to change my name and get 
disappear. This is what exactly the Islamic Republic of Iran 
wants me and many of my colleagues who actually give voice to 
Iranian voiceless people in America and Europe to get 
disappear.
    So, clearly, I refuse to be disappear. As you hear me I 
have loud voice because I see my people inside Iran they have 
no protections. They are facing guns and bullets and they are--
they want me to send a message to the U.S. Administration.
    Americans should not be left alone to face dangerous State 
actors and Iranian people inside should not be left alone 
because the people of Iran are not just fighting against 
Islamic Republic for themselves. They're trying to protect the 
U.S. citizens from one of the most dangerous regime which is 
called Islamic Republic of Iran.
    The smart way to proceed this it's not sending billions of 
dollars to release any innocent dual national citizens. It is 
to isolate the kidnappers, not sending signals that you can 
take more Americans hostage.
    I want to end this to ask you, the Congressmen and 
Congresswomen, to help us, to ask the Biden Administration to 
criminalize transnational repression and help Iranian people 
because they have simple demand.
    Whether you like the word or not, they want regime change 
and they believe that this has--the time has come for us 
Iranians to get rid of gender apartheid regime.
    Thank you so much, and I'm here to answer any question from 
you. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Alinejad follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.026
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.027
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.028
    
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Ms. Alinejad, for your 
courage.
    I now recognize Ms. Maloney for her opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF SUZANNE MALONEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF 
             FOREIGN POLICY, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

    Ms. Maloney. Thank you, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member 
Phillips, and distinguished members for inviting me to testify 
here today. It's an honor to address this committee. While I'm 
vice president and director of foreign policy at the Brookings 
Institution my testimony today represents only my own views.
    The Islamic Republic remains a disruptive and dangerous 
power. The Biden Administration revived diplomacy to constrain 
Tehran's nuclear advances and has sought to deter Iran's 
regional threats.
    But progress has been limited and Iran's challenges to its 
own people, its neighbors, anti-U.S. interests around the world 
have only intensified as a result of Tehran's unchecked nuclear 
program, its long track record of terrorism, hostage taking, 
and violent subversion, its deepening involvement in Russia's 
barbaric and illegal war in Ukraine, and its brutality toward 
its own citizens.
    Twenty years after the disclosure of Tehran's clandestine 
nuclear program in violation of its commitments under the 
nuclear nonproliferation treaty the regime has made exponential 
advances in its nuclear infrastructure and know how, despite 
years of intense diplomacy and covert efforts to set back the 
program.
    Tehran is now enriching at military grade levels and has 
stockpiled sufficient enriched uranium for multiple weapons. 
Breakout time is negligible, meaning the international 
community would have little to no time to respond should Tehran 
choose to race for a bomb.
    Tehran continues to actively engage in extraterritorial 
aggression through its adaptive and complex network of regional 
militias, its development and deployment of ballistic missiles 
and drones, its threats to shipping in the Persian Gulf.
    Tehran's troublemaking is not limited to its own 
neighborhood. This is a regime that has orchestrated terror 
attacks from Buenos Aires to Bulgaria, and in recent years 
Iranian leaders have demonstrated much higher degree of risk 
tolerance in planning attacks on individuals and entities 
around the world, including former senior U.S. Government 
officials and dissidents such as my fellow witness.
    Since the 1979 seizure of the U.S. embassy when the regime 
held 52 American public servants against their will for 444 
days the Islamic Republic has made hostage taking an instrument 
of State policy.
    Tehran unjustly detains Americans and other dual and 
foreign nationals and seeks economic or other concessions for 
their release. One year ago this week, as we have discussed, a 
young Iranian woman was murdered in regime custody after her 
arrest for wearing her head scarf improperly.
    The Mahsa Amini tragedy prompted months of protests 
demanding not merely an end to the Islamic Republic's hijab 
mandate but an end to the regime itself. Tehran's brutal 
crackdown killed more than 500 and imprisoned 22,000 but has 
not quashed the aspirations of the Iranian people for a 
democratic future.
    Finally, the Islamic Republic has become a key player in an 
emerging authoritarian alignment among the great powers, 
providing crucial technology, energy, economic and diplomatic 
support to Russia and China.
    For more than 44 years the formula for U.S. policy toward 
Tehran that was put in place in the days after the 1979 embassy 
seizure, balancing coercion and engagement--carrots and 
sticks--has remained largely unchanged. Each Administration, 
Republican as well as Democrat, has deployed economic and 
military pressure to counter Iran and each has sought a direct 
dialog with Iranian leaders.
    But our track record on Iran has been too modest. There 
have been few meaningful breakthroughs or sustained reversals 
in Iran's most problematic policies, and even Washington's 
closest partners have often proven reluctant to jeopardize 
their own trade and diplomatic ties with Iran.
    We need a new U.S. approach to Iran, one that ensures 
international constraints on and visibilities into Iran's 
nuclear activities, deters Tehran from advancing its 
provocative and nuclear and regional ambitions, and preserve 
space for the Iranian people who have fought for democracy for 
more than a century to bring about lasting change.
    Tehran has rebuffed or slow rolled the Biden 
Administration's efforts to reinState the nuclear deal to a 
point of absurdity. Consumed with the war in Ukraine and the 
looming challenge of China, the Administration is trying to 
advance informal understandings with Iran.
    Discretion is a key aspect of diplomacy, but while back 
channels can facilitate limited problem solving they cannot 
provide a viable platform for managing the profound challenges 
posed by Iran's destabilizing policies.
    President Biden has promised that Iran will not get a 
nuclear weapon under his watch and fulfilling that pledge will 
require a credible policy framework that can withstand public 
and congressional scrutiny.
    Let me also take this opportunity, as has--as have several 
of the members and several of my co-panelists to appeal for 
greater bipartisan cooperation on Iran. The polarized debate on 
Iran undermines effective policy. Across both sides of the 
aisle there is substantial agreement around the nature of the 
Iranian threat and the most effective tools for countering 
Tehran's malign behavior.
    Effective U.S. policy must address the totality of the Iran 
challenges especially but not limited to the nuclear program, 
rally our allies and partners around the world to do more to 
punish Iran's nuclear advances, its extra territorial 
aggression, and its mistreatment of its own citizens, reinforce 
deterrence through military exercises and U.S. force presence 
in the region, restore efforts to enforce U.S. sanctions and 
rebuild the multilateral sanctions regime that was responsible 
for shifting Iran's nuclear calculus a decade ago, take steps 
to reduce the vulnerability of Western governments to Iranian 
hostage taking.
    I'm thrilled the five Americans including Siamak Namazi, 
Emad Shargi, and Morad Tahbaz, who have suffered years of abuse 
by Iran, will soon be able to leave the country and rejoin 
their families.
    But make no mistake, there is now a $1 billion price on the 
head of every dual national and Western tourist--and believe it 
or not they still go--who sets foot in Iran.
    And finally, we must ensure that we're doing our part to 
support the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. My 
time is now complete but I look forward to your questions and 
to our conversation to follow.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Maloney follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.016
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.017
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.018
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.019
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.020
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.021
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.022
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.023
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.024
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.025
    
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Maloney.
    I now recognize myself with 5 minutes of questioning and it 
will be strictly enforced on me and then strictly enforced on 
the ranking member, Dean Phillips, too, and even Kathy Manning.
    But as we begin, I really want to show you that as there 
may be some appearance of nonbipartisanship there is 
bipartisanship and we--as you're going to be, I think, seeing 
substantially great concern about the threats that exist and 
the oppression of the people of Iran.
    We should be working together and, in fact, Ms. Alinejad, a 
question that we have or a point I want to make the world is so 
inspired by the Iranian people and their pursuit of basic human 
dignity, the 4,000 protests, I mean, and then, sadly, every 
time we turn around the number of persons murdered increases.
    And you have to put that in context, too. These 
substantially young people who--their families have lost a dear 
person in their family and so the moms and dads, the 
grandparents, the siblings, how horrific is this?
    It's critical that those who value human rights recognize 
the importance of not supporting the dictators materially. 
President Trump had a successful maximum pressure campaign 
which denied resources to the regime.
    How can we support a policy of maximum support for the 
people of Iran as they are bravely pursuing political change 
and reversal of the oppression and how could the passage of the 
MAHSA Act have positive impact on those risking their lives for 
freedom in Iran?
    Ms. Alinejad. Thank you so much.
    First of all, I have to say that MAHSA Act actually gave 
hope to Iranian people that finally, you know, we see 
bipartisan bill to try to actually isolate the killers.
    But let me be very, very honest with you. Now the United 
Nations actually became a place to unite the dictators from all 
over the world. So for that, we need actually the U.S. 
Government to take strong action and here you can help us a 
lot.
    How come that the members of the ayatollahs, the relative 
of those who say death to America, they are here but we cannot 
get a visa for the family members of those innocent protesters 
who got killed? We cannot get medical visa for those women and 
men who systematically got blinded by the Revolutionary Guards.
    And another thing is that the Revolutionary Guards itself 
is on the terrorist list by the United States of America when, 
you know, the maximum pressure was applied by Trump 
Administration.
    But believe me, the U.S. Government should have one policy 
toward Iran. Doesn't matter whether Trump is in power or Biden 
is in power, Obama is in power. You have to call your allies to 
designate Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. 
This is how you can help Iranian people who get killed in the 
streets.
    Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Ms. Alinejad, and I--
as you have specific examples of denial of visas or whatever 
I'm confident that members--our office would be happy to try to 
assist, OK?
    Ms. Alinejad. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Wilson. And so, Mr. Taleblu, U.S. partners in the 
region who oppose Iran seem to be rehabilitating its only ally 
in the region, mass murderer and drug kingpin Bashar Al-Assad. 
What do they hope to achieve in being--given Assad is firmly 
entrenched with Iran and hosts permanent air and naval bases of 
the Iranian ally war criminal Putin?
    Mr. Taleblu. It's a great question, sir, and it dovetails 
very nicely with, I think, what Norm Roule was talking about a 
little bit earlier.
    In essence, there is no way, in my view, to separate the 
Assad regime in Syria from the government of the Islamic 
Republic of Iran. It's been tried diplomatically several times.
    It has all been to folly. Every time the Assad regime has 
used that to buy political space, diplomatic space, and even 
economic breathing space. So it's simply a lifeline to the 
Assad regime in Syria. That's, you know, discretionary note No. 
1.
    No. 2, I would say is that look at what U.S. partners in 
the region are doing. After about 10 to 15 years, in their 
view, many of the GCC and other countries--in their view of 
America's failure to contain, deter, and roll back Iran they 
are beginning to slowly hedge toward Iran.
    Not that they're becoming pro-Iranian overnight. Certainly 
not. The Gulf Cooperation Council States like Saudi Arabia, 
UAE, and whatnot still deserve strong American support, full 
stop.
    But the reason this hedging is occurring is because they 
feel that unless they increasingly even if not just politically 
need to accommodate Tehran more, if they do not do that they 
will have more Iranian targets and more Iranian proxy targets 
on their back, not less.
    So they're doing things to kind of win brownie points, you 
could say, for Tehran and in essence trying to avoid the 
pressure that the regime is putting on them. We have to 
recognize this. We have to do better in our, you know, 
military, economic, and political pushback of the Islamic 
Republic and stop the rehabilitation of the Assad regime.
    Mr. Wilson. And, indeed, this is another area of 
bipartisanship as we were on the delegation just 3 weeks ago 
and working together, and with your suggestions and all of you 
we shall proceed.
    And I now recognize the Ranking Member, Dean Phillips.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again to each of 
you.
    You know, we have these conversations time and time and 
time again. We need a new approach. Don't stand with us. Let's 
sit down together and figure it out.
    You know, we have tried a lot of sticks. I believe this new 
initiative, which I know is distasteful on the surface to many, 
is a bit of a carrot. But I do want to ask each of you is there 
a chance? Can you see any possibility that this potential 
exchange of $6 billion in their frozen assets for some hostage 
release that there's more below the surface, that there may be 
a carrot there for changing the behavior, maybe aligned even 
with some of the rapprochement that might be occurring with 
Iran?
    I know it's not comfortable but I'm just wondering what 
would work--you know, what would work, maybe starting with you, 
Mr. Roule. I'd just like to hear from each of you. You know, 
would you support any attempt at diplomacy with Iran?
    Do you think there is any chance whatsoever that their 
interests might align with some of our diplomatic tools if we 
leverage them appropriately? I'd love to hear from each of you 
more specifically about what you think we should be doing.
    Mr. Roule?
    Mr. Roule. That's a great question. I have repeatedly 
watched and participated in diplomacy with Iran over multiple 
Administrations. We do not have a problem talking with Iran. We 
just have a problem in getting Iran to say anything that is 
worth hearing.
    What has worked to change Iran behavior is a simple method. 
It is consistent multilateral pressure and a sense that our 
deterrence actions are sincere. If Iran senses that it can 
outlast us, if it senses that our political divide in the 
United States can undermine those threats, then it simply waits 
because its leadership has sat in the same chair since 1979--
1983 for the Supreme Leader but he was around before that.
    Every few years we change new Congressmen, senators, White 
House personnel who come in and say, I'm a fresh face and it's 
going to be different, and after a while the Iranians have seen 
this movie repeatedly.
    So if you're looking for the solution that brought Iran to 
the table in 2014 it is not a single deal that provides them 
with a carrot.
    Mr. Phillips. OK. So heavier sanctions and more alignment--
--
    Mr. Roule. No, consistent sanctions----
    Mr. Phillips. Consistent.
    Mr. Roule [continuing]. That touch the Supreme Leader. 
Sanctions that are applied against individuals with no assets, 
no use of the financial system, no history of travel, and who 
are individuals the regime would rather not travel are symbolic 
and may make you feel good. But you should also request in that 
report I mentioned what is the actual impact of a sanction 
placed against Iran because the sanctions that cost them money 
do impact their decisionmaking.
    Mr. Phillips. OK. Thank you. And I've got a little over 2 
minutes left so if we could each take about 45 seconds.
    Ms. Alinejad. Thank you. I----
    Mr. Phillips. Let's go down the line here. Mr. Taleblu?
    Ms. Alinejad. One of the relative of the U.S. hostages here 
she's sitting here. Her father is in prison right now in a 
death row.
    Mr. Phillips. Thanks for being with us. I'm grateful. And, 
unfortunately, I only have 2 minutes. I do want to hear from 
each of you very specifically--very specifically--as Mr. Roule 
just shared, what we should be doing.
    Mr. Taleblu. First things first. Iran's changes to some of 
its security posture in the region should not be mistaken for 
deescalation and should not be welcomed. The Biden 
Administration is fundamentally misreading what is happening.
    Iran is not deescalating in the region. Iran is locking in 
its posture. This is basically a knife in the back of Saudi 
Arabia for 10 years and then a handshake does not account to 
deescalation. Arming, training, funding the Houthis for 10 
years, the Houthis are the only Iranian proxy with medium-range 
ballistic missiles.
    The Iranians did not create the Houthis. They co-opted that 
movement there. So understand what this is first. Iran is 
locking in a series of conflicts, not deescalating them; 
locking in a stalemate in its favor to buy time, space, 
breathing room.
    Same thing with the rehab of its States. In addition to the 
strong multilateral recommendations for sanctions that Norm 
Roule just mentioned I would echo one other thing. Deterrence 
by punishment, not just deterrence by denial. It is not enough 
to have air and missile defense assets in the region----
    Mr. Phillips. The punishment--what is punishment?
    Mr. Taleblu. Deterrence by punishment is kinetic strikes 
more----
    Mr. Phillips. OK. Punishment----
    Mr. Taleblu [continuing]. And lower threshold for those 
kinetic strikes and more often and against the point of origin. 
For example, the Biden Administration actually has a lower 
threshold for the use of force than the Trump Administration 
but is squandering it because its response is not at the point 
of origin of those strikes.
    Mr. Phillips. OK. I want to move to Ms. Maloney. And Ms. 
Alinejad, you've been wonderful with your perspectives. I want 
to hear Ms. Maloney answer this with 30 seconds left, 
specifically.
    Ms. Maloney. OK. I'll be very brief.
    I agree with a lot. There's a lot of bipartisan consensus 
even on this panel and certainly in this room but I would make 
a strong case for the need for direct diplomacy with Iran.
    I think that we have, unfortunately, made direct engagement 
toxic and that simply has no historical precedent. We held 
embassies in the Soviet Union throughout the cold war. We have 
always had a diplomatic dialog with the Chinese.
    We need to be directly engaging with the officials of the 
Islamic Republic but, as my colleague said, doing so in a way 
that makes clear that we are not ceding ground to them.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Ms. Maloney. My time has expired. 
I yield back.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Phillips.
    We now proceed to Congressman Brian Mast of Florida.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the time.
    I want to start with you, Mr. Roule. You spend a great deal 
of time on the ground in the Middle East, spent a career 
spending time on the ground in the Middle East, and I want to 
help you to--have you help us to understand the playbook for 
Iran from your understanding as somebody that's spent time 
there.
    What play does Iran run at a granular level to get 
influence whether in a Syria, whether in a Yemen, you know, 
whether--you know, with different groups throughout Saudi 
Arabia?
    What is their playbook that they are running to? As I've 
said many times, I think they're working to colonize every 
place that they can across the region, gain financial 
advantage, gain access to resources, gain influence in the 
government.
    Tell me what playbook do you find that they actually run on 
the ground to execute those operations.
    Mr. Roule. That's an important question. Iran has 
consistently used proxies empowered, trained, and armed by a 
small group of individuals from a force known as the Quds 
Force.
    Mr. Mast. Let me pause you there. I want to have you 
continue to answer. That term proxy gets thrown around here all 
the time, even Quds Force, Iranian Revolutionary Guard. If you 
can, get even more granular, if you can, to answer that. What 
are those proxy forces doing on the ground?
    Mr. Roule. They take a non-Iranian official, non-Iranian 
actors empowered with Iranian capability, to conduct in essence 
actions that feed into Iran and that is as different as 
individuals recruited in the United States to kidnap or kill 
this fellow witness or using the Houthis to fire Iranian 
weapons or training the Assad regime and working with the 
Russians to kill Syrian freedom fighters.
    And the reason for that is the international community does 
not respond to Iran for the work of its proxies. We treat 
actions in the United States to include the threats against 
current--former and current American citizens and officials as 
a legal issue, not an Iranian foreign policy issue.
    The world was generally silent when hundreds of Iranian 
missiles and drones aimed at civilian targets to include a 
hundred thousand Americans and we treated it as a local air 
defense issue and not an Iran issue.
    So for Iran it's a winning strategy. It's low cost, it does 
not incur a threat of attack by the United States, and it's 
able to convince its targets that they should fear Iran or that 
the United States will not stand up for them.
    Mr. Mast. Let's continue on that thread. What do they use 
to create fear from their side of it to those that they want to 
engage with--to be feared or loved? What do they--what is their 
tool for that?
    Mr. Roule. If you look at Sunni Islam, Sunni Islam--al-
Qaida's number-one target was overthrowing Saudi Arabia. If you 
look at militant Shi'a Islam, its number-one goal is to adhere 
to the to--to the directions of the Supreme Leader and 
fostering the influence of Iran throughout the world.
    They employ the cruelest bloodiest techniques, and one more 
comment to build on a comment of Masih Alinejad, their 
techniques are often involving tools of weapons of mass 
destruction, which means in the United States that would be 
explosives over sniper scopes, which means missiles aimed at a 
variety of targets do not turn left and right over American 
passports.
    It means women and children die along with their primary 
military target, because by doing so and having the world stand 
back and not respond they're able to say, you're alone and 
you'd better listen.
    Mr. Mast. The term you're looking for, I think, is 
indiscriminate, right, versus when we put Suleimani into his 
place into to five pieces on the side of the tarmac where there 
was not collateral damage.
    Mr. Roule. Absolutely. Absolutely, sir.
    Mr. Mast. Get more granular with me if you can about their 
brutal tactics. What do they do specifically that makes you say 
they're that brutal and bloody whether to their own people, 
whether to those that they would kidnap, as we have a family 
member here?
    Mr. Roule. Within Iran the leadership well knows what 
happens in its prison. We're talking about sexual violence 
against minors. We're talking about tools that leave innocent 
civilians blinded or peaceful protesters blinded.
    We're talking about coercion against family members that 
leave--the threat of destitution or imprisonment. We're talking 
about people who disappear in their country in a way that it 
hasn't occurred in the region save for Saddam Hussein's era in 
such--in such a style.
    There is not a limit on their cruelty. There is, however, a 
limit on the amount of blood they feel they wish to spill at 
once because they believe that in some ways is a--it shows a 
weakness of the regime. But narrowed focused cruelty is a very 
effective tool inside of Iran and Masih Alinejad, I'm sure, and 
Suzanne and Behnam can comment on that.
    Mr. Mast. I thank you for sharing your experience from your 
time on the ground in the region. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Brian Mast.
    We now proceed to Congresswoman Kathy Manning of North 
Carolina.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you to my friends Chairman Wilson and 
Ranking Member Phillips and thank you to our witnesses for 
being at this very important hearing.
    We all know that Iran is the principal source of 
instability in the region. It is a major threat to our U.S. 
interests and the world's leading State sponsor of terrorism.
    But an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would represent an 
even greater, entirely unacceptable threat and that is why now 
is the time to maintain pressure on Iran and continue to 
enforce strong economic sanctions that we have in place. But as 
we have discussed today, that does not seem to be enough.
    So, Mr. Roule, can you talk to us a little bit more--I know 
you've started the discussion under prior questions, but what 
should the proper approach look like? And you mentioned earlier 
that what we need is a consistent multilateral pressure, that 
that is the only thing that works.
    I wonder if, first of all, could you elaborate on that but 
also can you give us an example of when that consistent 
multilateral pressure has worked?
    Mr. Roule. Thank you, ma'am.
    In 2014 Iran came to the negotiating table because a number 
of drivers were present, most of which are absent today: great 
power unity, the United States with Russia and China.
    The Obama Administration had put in place the most 
significant amount of sanctions that had ever been placed on 
Iran, and truth in lending. They would have called it--I was 
there--maximum pressure, but that just hadn't been thought of.
    But it was perceived at the time that that was maximum 
pressure and the Iranians thought pressure would be greater. We 
had routine large American military forces in the region. We 
were still in Iraq and Afghanistan. We had unity with the Gulf 
States and with Europe that more pressure against Iran was 
needed.
    This brought Iran to the table. That does not mean Iran 
came to the table for any deal. It just came to the table. What 
you need is a policy that--in which Iran believes its options 
to escape pressure do not exist and that's difficult with 
Europe. It's difficult with Russia now and China.
    But if Iran believes that sanctions are not significant or 
not serious and the sanctions on Iran's oil industry do not 
appear to be enforced as robustly as they should be, it tells 
the Iranians they have not yet reached our red lines and it's a 
very dangerous situation.
    I gave a list of a number of things Iran has done and none 
of those things provoked military action by the United States 
or robust--a robust sanctions action. If that does not do it, 
if you're in Tehran your answer is probably, I bet I can go a 
little farther.
    Ms. Manning. In light of what's happened with the war in 
Ukraine, in light of the need for energy in many of the 
European countries, and in light of the burgeoning relationship 
between Iran and Russia and Russia's need for the drones that 
Iran is supplying, how realistic is it to establish a 
consistent multilateral pressure, the kind that you are 
describing?
    Mr. Roule. It's not likely at all.
    Ms. Manning. So what are our other options?
    Mr. Roule. Our other options are unilateral sanctions 
working with Europeans and convincing other States to stand 
with us. It's not the strongest play that we have had but as 
other policymakers have stated you go to war economic, 
diplomatic, or military with the Army you've got and that's the 
current world that we now face.
    But we should say there is a--there's also an action that 
will happen if we do not occur. We often talk about what are 
the consequences of steps. There are going to be consequences 
to nonaction as well and you should consider that, ma'am, as 
you're in policymaking.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you.
    Ms. Maloney, can you comment on the same kind of question? 
You talked about the need for a new approach. You gave some 
examples but can you elaborate on that?
    Ms. Maloney. Thank you very much.
    Again, I agree with a lot of what my fellow panelists had 
to say. The conditions that we face today for multilateral 
diplomacy are far less positive in terms of really marshaling a 
coalition to apply the same level of pressure that brought Iran 
to the negotiating table starting in 2013.
    But I also would commend Congress to think about what the 
United States has done over the past several years with respect 
to the challenge from China. It was unimaginable that we would 
have been able to marshal the pressure that we have, to build 
the consensus that we have, to broker a better relationship, 
for example, between the Koreans and the Japanese to build 
AUKUS, to create a wider coalition of States that are prepared 
to take risks and prepared to apply pressure when they 
understand that there's a challenge and also that they 
understand the United States is prepared to lead.
    I think the same can be done with respect to Iran. It's 
going to be an uphill climb. We're going to have to examine the 
tradeoffs between applying pressure to Iran and what that means 
for our own economy and what it means for our policy toward 
China.
    But, unfortunately, we have made Iran policy subsidiary to 
these other much larger challenges and it has fallen off the 
radar. I think, obviously, as you can tell from the consensus 
amongst us it's really time to put it back front and center on 
the U.S. policy agenda.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you all 
for your testimony.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Kathy 
Manning.
    And we are now--as an indication of how important this 
hearing is, how much we appreciate the witnesses who are here--
it's really unprecedented--but the chairman of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee has arrived, Chairman Mike McCaul of Texas, 
and, again, it's a reiterization of how important the people of 
Iran are as we want the best.
    Chairman McCaul?
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for 
holding this very important hearing, very timely considering 
the action on the floor that we had yesterday passing three 
important bills pertaining to Iran.
    And I want to thank the witnesses for being here to focus 
on the threat that Iran poses to not only the United States but 
Israel and Saudi Arabia and the whole Middle East.
    This week as we commemorate 9/11 and the murder of Mahsa 
Amini by Iran's morality police the Administration waived our 
sanctions to greenlight the transfer of $6 billion for Iran, 
the world's top State sponsor of terror.
    Let me be abundantly clear. The Americans held by Iran are 
innocent hostages who must be released immediately and 
unconditionally. But paying ransom to release hostages creates 
a direct incentive for America's adversaries to conduct more 
hostage taking.
    Iran is bragging about receiving this payment. The 
president of Iran is saying that he will do whatever he wants 
with the money even though it was supposed to go for 
humanitarian purposes.
    We need a policy to deter future hostage taking and one 
that contains, not enables, Iranian aggression. A nuclear Iran, 
let me say, is unacceptable and I will have a resolution on the 
floor stating it's a policy of the United States that a nuclear 
Iran is unacceptable, and in diplomatic speak I think the 
ayatollah and the president of Iran understand what that means.
    As the IAEA just disclosed, Iran could produce enough 
uranium for several nuclear weapons within weeks, even as the 
regime continues to stonewall their investigators. That's why 
I'm so concerned the Administration may broker an informal 
nuclear understanding with Iran without notifying Congress, in 
violation of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
    I made this point to President Biden in a recent letter 
that I sent with the Leader Scalise and Conference Chair 
Stefanik. No matter what you call it--a deal, an agreement, an 
understanding, an arrangement--it legitimizes Iran's nuclear 
program and that is bad for the United States, our allies, and 
our global security.
    Time and again, this Administration continues to project 
weakness on the world stage and weakness, as we know from 
history, only invites aggression. Under U.S. law any 
arrangement with Iran needs to be submitted to Congress 
pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, a submission 
which has not yet taken place.
    This is not the first time Congress has been left in the 
dark. The Special Envoy for Iran, Rob Malley, was on leave for 
months before the media, not the State Department, revealed 
that he was under investigation for potentially mishandling 
classified information.
    It's very concerning, deeply troublesome, and they were not 
transparent with either side of the aisle on this committee. 
Mr. Meeks and I registered that complaint to the 
Administration.
    I just believe that is totally unacceptable, and as we 
continue to face the lethal threat of Iran's missiles and 
drones that fuel deadly attacks across the Middle East and now 
Russian attacks in Ukraine, I am pleased this week that the 
House passed my bipartisan the Fight CRIME Act which imposes 
sweeping sanctions on anyone doing business with Iran's missile 
and drone program.
    With the U.N. restrictions on Iran's missiles and drones 
set to expire next month, which has been in place for 15 
years--they will expire next month--we need to send a clear 
message to the international community that buying Iran's 
missiles and drones guarantees that you will be sanctioned.
    As I mentioned this week, this is the anniversary of Mahsa 
Amini's murder by Iran's morality police. Her murder is a 
tragedy and an outrage and it sparked a revolution, a 
revolution I hope we can continue because the people of Iran 
are oppressed by this theocracy. They do not agree with it but 
they're oppressed and censored and we need to empower the women 
in Iran and the people of Iran.
    Throughout the past year brave Iranians have taken to the 
streets in protest of this brutal regime, risking their lives. 
The United States needs to do more to support the people of 
Iran and these protesters.
    So, again, I want to thank the chairman for holding this 
very timely and important hearing and I want to thank the 
witnesses for all you do for the people of Iran. I know that 1 
day they will be liberated.
    I remember 1979 and it changed the Middle East. But you 
cannot keep people under oppression forever, and just as the 
Soviet Union collapsed I do believe that the Iranian regime 
theocracy under the ayatollah will collapse by the will of its 
own people.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chairman Mike McCaul, and 
I'm going to reiterate how important it is that we would have 
the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee to come in to 
show respect to our witnesses but, really, love and affection 
for the people of Iran.
    We want freedom for the people of Iran, the courage--and to 
recognize the courage of the protesters in 4,000 different 
communities, the 22,000 people who are being detained. Now we 
hear over 600 who have been killed and the consequence to their 
families as we see the consequence to moms and dads, to 
grandparents, to siblings.
    This is just--must be addressed and working together with 
the leadership of Chairman Mike McCaul our Congress stands with 
the people of Iran.
    I'm very grateful we now recognize Congressman Brad 
Schneider of Illinois.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 
our witnesses for joining us today.
    I want to juxtapose my day yesterday with our hearing 
today. Yesterday we spent the day marking the third anniversary 
of the Abraham Accords. Started the morning with a group of 
young people from the Accord countries, young people who 
brimmed with optimism and promise of possibilities of building 
relationships and pursuing peace.
    We spoke about new paradigms and bridges to understanding 
and today we talk about Iran--Iran, a violator of human rights, 
pursuing a nuclear program, State sponsor of terrorism drones 
being sold to Russia in their fight against Ukraine, piracy, 
assassination, and, Mr. Roule, you said seeking hegemony in the 
region for their own purposes and economic means.
    Ms. Maloney, you talked about the diplomatic efforts to 
constrain Iran's nuclear advances that have had little effect 
for the last 40-plus years, 30-plus years--few meaningful 
breakthroughs or sustained reversals--and you said quite 
clearly it's time for a new approach.
    Now, in 2015 I opposed the JCPOA because I felt it did not 
go far enough. It did not solve the--it may have solved the 
problem of the physics but it did not solve the problem of the 
geopolitics and had sunsets that left Iran a nuclear power in 
the end.
    But I also opposed pulling out of the JCPOA in 2017 and 
2018 because we hadn't strengthened our hand in the intervening 
time. We hadn't laid a new foundation to create a better way to 
block and ultimately permanently close Iran's pathways to a 
nuclear bomb.
    Again, Ms. Maloney, as you said, deterring Iran will 
require a much higher level of vigilance from the U.S. and our 
partners in Europe and the Middle East and beyond.
    Mr. Ben Taleblu, you said we need to connect the dots. I 
think you're right but I think it's more than that. It's more 
than just dots. It's the lines that connect us around the 
world, the seams where things come together.
    It's the overlaps extending beyond the Gulf and the entire 
Middle East, the war in Ukraine, the great power politics. In 
fact, it runs across our entire foreign policy.
    This Administration and those before have continued to make 
it crystal clear that all options are on the table including 
military force and I was pleased to lead with my colleague, the 
chair, to say that the U.S. is committed to making sure Iran 
never ever has a nuclear weapon.
    But finding a kinetic--a nonkinetic solution is certainly 
better than war to reverse Iran's nuclear program and other 
nefarious activities.
    In particular, it's a combination of stronger ties with our 
allies and combined sanctions, sanctions that, unfortunately, 
will begin to diminish immediately after being implemented. So 
we need to ratchet them up over and over again. We need to have 
the will and the resolve with ourselves and our allies.
    So I've been giving a longer speech than I intended. Let me 
ask the question. All right, Ms. Maloney, I'll start with you.
    We need a new paradigm. You laid it out a little bit. What 
are the most important things we can do here in Congress to lay 
the groundwork, to do what hasn't been achieved in the past, to 
better thwart Iran, to better send the signal that we have the 
resolve and the will that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon 
and we will do everything necessary to ensure we achieve that 
goal?
    Ms. Maloney. My fellow witness listed a number of bills 
that are before the Congress and I think many of them do in 
fact help to advance the overall goal of ensuring that we deter 
Iran and that we prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear 
weapons capability.
    But you mentioned the Abraham Accords and there's been 
discussion of the recent delegation trip to the region, and I 
think that there's much more that this body can do in terms of 
discussions and conversations with policymakers from across the 
Middle East who in many cases are seeking to find ways to 
mitigate their own threat from Iran by essentially providing 
economic incentives.
    We need to ensure that, first and foremost, obviously, we 
have a close robust partnership with the Israelis who have been 
with us every step of the way. But that needs to be the case 
with our partners in the Gulf, who often play both sides of the 
aisle, especially as we talk about a potential expansion of the 
Abraham Accords.
    It's got to be crystal clear to the Saudis and to the other 
Gulf Arabs that their cooperation, their enforcement of U.S. 
sanctions, their insurance that they do not somehow incentivize 
the Islamic Republic to think that it can survive this current 
challenge is going to be absolutely critical.
    Mr. Schneider. Mr. Roule, let me turn to you because your 
career spans 34 years with the CIA. It was about 30 years ago 
we started raising the alarm bells about Iran's nuclear 
program.
    We have done so many things, talked about so many ideas to 
thwart it, but today where we sit Iran has enough material to 
build nuclear weapons. They're advancing in that program and 
they're making--reinforcing relations with China and Russia.
    I'm past my time but if you can answer, what's the most 
important thing we need to do now to make sure we change the 
path we're going on?
    Mr. Roule. Consistency of a policy that says we're open to 
diplomacy but we'll absolutely use military force in certain 
circumstances. The absence of consistency has catastrophic 
consequences for our diplomacy. Suzanne Maloney is one of the 
wisest people in Washington and her comments on the Gulf States 
are spot on.
    I'm going to give you an example of when we went to Gulf 
States and we said we would like you to cut your ties with--
your economic ties with Iran and some of them severely cut 
their economic ties with Iran at great cost to their own 
economies, these States were then told in the newspaper we were 
secretly negotiating with Iran and that a president of the 
United States had offered to even engage the Iranian president 
at the United Nations.
    You have to think what does that mean today when we ask 
these same countries to cut their ties with Russia. Do they 
expect that we will have a secret back channel that will result 
in the president of the United States meeting Vladimir Putin in 
another location? This absence of consistency from one 
Administration to another is corrosive and helps Iran.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you.
    Chairman, thank you for give me the extra time. I'll take 
two more seconds to say you opened by talking about 
bipartisanship. If we can achieve consistency in Congress the 
best way to do that is continuing our work together across 
party lines, Republicans and Democrats.
    I appreciate your leadership and I yield back.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Brad Schneider, and, 
indeed, Congressman Schneider and I have worked together on 
different issues and we shall continue.
    With this I am really grateful that we have Congressman Jim 
Baird of Indiana.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really appreciate 
the witnesses taking their time to be here.
    And, you know, it's been said and I will just reiterate 
that--the fact that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Their human 
rights violations is just unacceptable around the world and, 
you know, I'm really amazed at how much fear impacts people and 
their thinking.
    And so I would like to turn my turn--my time over to a 
colleague of mine, and he and I have been in combat and so we 
do not--we do not--we're not afraid of fear, I guess.
    And so with that, I'd like to turn it over and yield my 
time to Mr. Brian Mast.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Baird. I appreciate the time.
    I want to continue on the line of questioning that has been 
brought up on both sides of the JCPOA, what do you do, moving 
forward--different Administrations--and I want to bring up some 
of the comments of Wendy Sherman.
    So Wendy Sherman, chief architect of the original Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action, and, you know, she--I do not know 
if you could call it a book tour but certainly spoke publicly 
about it in length, you know, following her time leaving the 
Administration and during the Trump Administration.
    She spoke very clearly about the fact that what allowed 
them to do what they viewed as a success with the JCPOA, that 
it could not have been done without Iran fully believing that 
the United States of America would, as you just discussed, Mr. 
Roule, take kinetic action, would go and destroy Fordow if need 
be, go and destroy wherever it is that we would need to destroy 
to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. The deal could not have 
happened without that.
    So if that was the keystone, the kingpin, to having that 
deal take place there's a very important question at play for 
this Administration or for anybody viewing this Administration, 
any foreign intelligence agencies looking at this 
Administration.
    And this is a question for all four of you as analysts of 
this--of this situation. Do any of you believe that any foreign 
intelligence agencies view that this Administration will, as 
you said, take any and all action to prevent a nuclear-armed 
Iran as Wendy Sherman said was so key or do they assess that 
they do not have that level of commitment?
    Ms. Maloney. I will start.
    I personally believe that the Biden Administration would 
take military action. Whether our adversaries believe that I do 
not know. I think that the exercises such as Juniper Oak that 
we have engaged in with our partners in the region have been an 
important way of signaling to the Iranians and others that we 
are prepared to do so.
    I believe that the President, consistent with the kind of 
traditional U.S. national security approach, means what he says 
when he says it and in particular given how close his 
relationship is with the Israelis and understanding the Israeli 
perspective on this there is genuinely a commitment.
    But I do not think that the Iranians fully appreciate it 
and I do not know that our other adversaries do as well.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you.
    Mr. Taleblu. May I just chime in briefly?
    Mr. Mast. All of you are welcome to chime in.
    Mr. Taleblu. Thank you. It's an excellent question.
    Definitely cannot purport to speak on behalf of any foreign 
intelligence organization, but trying to put yourself briefly 
and however flawed into the mind of the adversary I think the 
Iranians have some significant room for confidence in their 
assessment about American thresholds for the use of force, 
about American deterrence by punishment, again, that theme 
American willingness to use force in general.
    So even in the situation that Suzanne Maloney outlined 
where our partners and allies and, you know, allied foreign 
intelligence services like Five Eyes and whatnot make an 
assessment that Biden is consistent with the past five U.S. 
presidents to prevent a nuclear Iran at all costs, including 
using the military option, I believe that perception is eroding 
in the mind of Iran's strategic decisionmakers.
    Things that make that perception erode is basically a 
bipartisan foreign policy failure, for instance, to enforce the 
Carter Doctrine. 2019 cruise missile and drone missile strikes 
at Saudi oil facilities, no kinetic American response. The loss 
of American life in the Middle East, no kinetic response. 
Again, last year an American citizen died due to an Iranian 
close-range ballistic missile strike--I believe the family is 
trying to sue the State Department or U.S. government--no 
kinetic U.S. response.
    These things erode the otherwise tough perception of joint 
military exercises and consistent rhetoric across several 
Administrations. So it's not just our rhetoric, it's the 
realities that our posture creates.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Brian Mast.
    And as another indication of the bipartisan support for the 
people of Iran we have had the chairman of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, Mike McCaul of Texas, Republican, here and now we 
have Congressman Gerry Connolly, the former president of the 
NATO Parliamentary Assembly, of another political party from me 
and so it's bipartisan.
    Congressman Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
the collaboration you and I have experienced over the years, 
making common cause with our allies and NATO in the terrible 
depraved war in Ukraine.
    Ms. Maloney, the horrors of the prospect of Iran becoming a 
nuclear power have been enumerated here in this hearing. Was 
there ever any attempt to kind of roll it back and prevent that 
from happening?
    Ms. Maloney. I believe that the----
    Mr. Connolly. Speak up, please, into the mic.
    Ms. Maloney. Yes. I believe that the Joint Comprehensive 
Plan of Action was, in effect, an attempt to contain and to 
begin to roll back Iran's nuclear advances. Had it been 
implemented in full, had there been an opportunity as everyone 
who is involved with the deal had envisioned to negotiate a 
follow-on agreement that would buildupon and strengthen the 
provisions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action I believe 
that we would be in a much stronger position with respect to 
Iran's proximity to nuclear weapons capability.
    Mr. Connolly. Would it be fair to say that that agreement 
was the first time Iran sat down with the Western allies and 
the United States in particular to agree to anything since the 
revolution?
    Ms. Maloney. The first time since the 1981 Algiers Accord 
that freed the hostages in Iran.
    Mr. Connolly. Now, was that agreement, the JCPOA agreement, 
was that--was that ever certified in terms of compliance?
    Ms. Maloney. Iran was complying with the Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action.
    Mr. Connolly. And that was certified by the IAEA in Vienna. 
Is that correct?
    Ms. Maloney. That's correct.
    Mr. Connolly. Multiple times?
    Ms. Maloney. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. And in case somebody does not want to trust 
an international organization, am I correct that it was also 
certified twice by the President Trump State Department?
    Ms. Maloney. Yes, you are correct.
    Mr. Connolly. Oh. And that was in all respects, was it not, 
with respect to centrifuges, with respect to the amount of 
enriched uranium that had to be shipped out of the country, 
with respect to lowering the rate of enrichment allowed, and 
with respect to the plutonium production reactor? Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Maloney. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. So we actually had a vehicle and it was 
working and they were in compliance, and what happened to that 
vehicle?
    Ms. Maloney. The Iran nuclear deal----
    Mr. Connolly. You've got to speak up.
    Ms. Maloney. The Joint Comprehensiveness Plan of Action has 
collapsed since the withdrawal by the Trump Administration in 
2018 and the reimposition of sanctions in contravention to our 
obligations under the----
    Mr. Connolly. So some of these people who were so quick to 
talk for a kinetic solution conveniently overlooked the fact 
that we had a nonkinetic solution that was working and that was 
pushing Iran back from that nuclear threshold by many, many--
well, in some cases, months and some other categories years and 
now we're faced with very few good options. Is that a fair 
statement?
    Ms. Maloney. We have far worse options today than we did in 
2015 or in 2018 when President Trump exited the deal.
    Mr. Connolly. And one of the biggest critics of the JCPOA 
before it went into effect was the prime minister of Israel, 
Mr. Netanyahu, who actually came here to Washington and spoke 
to a joint session of Congress, snubbing the chief executive of 
our country, President Obama, and agreeing unilaterally to an 
appearance here by one party's invitation, and he claimed that 
this was so important, so existentially threatening, that it 
transcended politics. Do you remember that speech?
    Ms. Maloney. I do remember.
    Mr. Connolly. How long has Mr. Netanyahu been prime 
minister of Israel?
    Ms. Maloney. Cumulatively, I'm not sure I have the math 
offhand.
    Mr. Connolly. I think 13 years--longest serving prime 
minister.
    And in the early parts of his tenure if he was worried 
about the existential threat Iran posed do you believe that he 
could have had a kinetic option to himself at that time, an 
option, by the way, Israel has in fact exercised in other 
nuclear situations, Syria and Iraq to wit?
    Ms. Maloney. I do not believe that the Israelis could 
conclusively eliminate the Iranian nuclear program alone.
    Mr. Connolly. Today. I'm talking about when he first became 
prime minister. The options were better, were they not?
    Ms. Maloney. They were better.
    Mr. Connolly. OK. And did he exercise the kinetic option?
    Ms. Maloney. He exercised considerable covert options but 
not the sort of military strike.
    Mr. Connolly. Right. He did not go to war with Iran. He did 
not bomb Iran. But we hear some voices here today apparently 
thinking it's OK for the United States to do that in a much 
more complicated, difficult, and certain to be costly situation 
if we resort to violence. Would that be a fair statement, do 
you think?
    Ms. Maloney. That is a fair statement.
    Mr. Connolly. I think it's something we have got to 
contemplate and I think we have to take responsibility for the 
past. A lot of people who opposed JCPOA were proved wrong. They 
did not cheat. They, in fact, complied.
    It was certified by IAEA and by the Trump Administration 
itself and we walked away from it. We did that, not Russia, not 
Iran, and we need to take some responsibility for that in 
trying to repair the damage we caused.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, President Gerry Connolly.
    We now proceed to Congressman Rich McCormick of Georgia.
    Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the 
witnesses for taking time out of your busy schedule to come 
speak to us today.
    Despite what the current Administration would like to think 
Iran continues to be a malign influence around the world. We 
have seen it both with terrorism, with overt gestures of 
weaponry and what they're selling to people who would do us 
harm.
    In a real way they are funding--they're probably the 
biggest funders of terrorism in the world, in my opinion as a 
military guy who's faced their weaponry all over the world and 
seen what they've done in terrorism.
    To be clear, we have a significant number of Iranian 
diaspora in the United States, who are amazing people but very 
much despise the theocracy that's oppressing the people that 
they love as well.
    At least from the aspect of what we have given as far as 
billions of dollars, we saw it previously in the Obama 
Administration--I think $1.7 billion for four people who were 
given up as hostages and now $6 billion for, what is it, five 
hostages.
    You can see that, A, obviously it's encouraging the bad 
behavior and, B, inflation isn't just here in America. I think 
we can see that this is just getting worse as a policy, if you 
will.
    Now, we have deflected this saying, oh, this money that we 
paid to them can only be used for what we say it's going to be. 
Of course, I'd like to use Joe Biden's words against him. Come 
on, man. It just makes no sense.
    We know that that money is going to go back to Iran. 
They're going to be able to spend more money on whatever they 
want to because it frees up more money to spend on arms and 
terrorism, everything bad. That's just common sense. It's 
deductive reasoning, if you will.
    I think it was an excellent point that you made about that 
we lose all leverage and moral high ground when we say to other 
nations, you need to cut ties--you need to not benefit Iran 
economically, much to their detriment.
    We say, please do this as a collaborative effort, and then 
we give them billions of dollars to benefit Iran and their 
economy. I think it's pure hypocrisy, and what was really 
interesting, Ms. Maloney, is you actually surprised me.
    I love it when people surprise me because I learn, and you 
said something along the line that the Biden Administration 
would be willing to use force against Iran if they saw them 
approaching something that we have essentially forbidden, if 
you will, or agreed upon to keep them from using nuclear arms 
or use force.
    The problem is that we look at our actions--that Iran would 
feel empowered to seize an American ship, that they would feel 
empowered to seize American citizens, does not make me think 
that they take that threat very seriously, quite frankly, and 
that's what worries me is that we're coming from what is a 
perceived weakness.
    You said whether they perceive it is the way I heard you, 
quote, say. That's my concern is that we're not projecting 
power. We're not projecting strength. We're not seen as world 
leaders and it's creating a void of world leadership.
    I'm all for individual freedoms in America. I believe in 
American inalienable rights. The question is--I have to the 
panel is should we as a policy not allow Americans to travel to 
Iran, given that we continue to have this bad behavior, if 
we're going to continue to have to bail people out? In other 
words, usually we give people the freedom to take their 
chances.
    But given the fact that they're just doing this over and 
over again and it becomes a source of income should we 
literally say no more--you cannot do it?
    Ms. Alinejad. May I take the question?
    Mr. McCormick. Please.
    Ms. Alinejad. Yes, I have no fear to say that the U.S. 
Government must warn its own citizens not to travel to Iran 
because my beloved country Iran under Islamic Republic is not 
land of tourists. It is land of terrorism, and that actually--
there is proof and a high ranking member of Revolutionary Guard 
saying that we are suffering from economic crisis in Iran and I 
have a solution. He is the main advisor of Ali Khamenei. He 
says that, Mohsen Rezaee, he says that if we take 10,000 
Americans hostage we can actually help our economic situation 
in Iran.
    So it is clear, and let me--I really want to say that. We 
have spent, like, 1 hour, 2 hour--I lost the time. We're 
talking about nuclear deal and this is the conversation that 
most of the American policymaker cares about it and mostly they 
spend time to talk about this.
    But believe me, Iranian people they moved on. The problem 
in Iran is not nuclear, you know, deal. I'm not agreeing with 
what--everything Trump did. I'm not agreeing with, you know, 
all his policy.
    But, believe me, Iranian people were thanking him for 
walking out from nuclear deal. Believe me, Iranian people were 
celebrating when Qasem Soleimani got killed because he was a 
terrorist. He killed a lot of innocent people.
    Don't get me wrong. We're not encouraging--we're not war 
mongers. The true war mongers are the Islamic Republic actually 
killing their own teenagers, sending drones to Putin to kill 
innocent children in Ukraine.
    So for years and years everywhere we go we just hear 
talking about we want to stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb. 
But how? How? You spent the resources of Americans for two 
decades. You achieved nothing.
    The moment when Iranian people are calling Obama, Obama, 
you're either with us or with the Islamic Republic, Obama was 
sending secret letter to Khamenei, to the Supreme Leader of 
Iran, instead of supporting Iranian people.
    Believe me, we're not calling you to bring democracy for 
us. We're not actually asking Americans to help us. Clearly, 
we're asking you to stop helping the killers. Imagine--imagine 
in your neighborhood there is an abusive man raping girls, 
raping teenagers.
    What would you do? You report him to the police. You're not 
going and giving him money and asking him OK, please stop. 
Don't rape children. No.
    This is what we the people of Iran are doing. We want to 
make the Islamic Republic, the terrorist regime of Iran, 
responsible, taking them to the court--to international court. 
And then in the middle of our way we see, as our fellow 
panelists clearly mentioned, secret and parallel negotiation 
with the killers, with the rapist.
    So yes, I know that you want an Iran without bomb. But Iran 
is--the Islamic Republic is not trust--you cannot trust them 
and what I want is clear, that help us to end this regime 
because an Iran without Islamic Republic will benefit the 
United States of America as well.
    We, the people of Iran, are better allies for the 
Americans. You meet with Ebrahim Raisi. You meet with--secretly 
at the United Nations you meet with them. You secretly call the 
killers but you do not even dare to meet with us.
    The Biden Administration asked me to get disappeared. 
President Biden does not want to meet with me, do not do 
anything when I got killed here at the United States of 
America. Now you have to listen to the voice of Iranian women. 
That's all we want.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Rich 
McCormick.
    Mr. McCormick. Couldn't sum it up better, Chair.
    Mr. Wilson. Here, here.
    Mr. McCormick. Thank you.
    Mr. Wilson. Amen.
    We now proceed to Congressman Brad Sherman of California.
    Mr. Sherman. We were in a strong position in 2014-2015. We 
had effective sanctions, particularly the banking sanctions. We 
had international support and compliance with those sanctions 
and we had an American public attitude that would allow us to 
convey a credible threat of military action. And then, finally, 
we had an Iranian nuclear program that had not been hardened 
against air strikes.
    Today we are in a weaker position. We still have the 
sanctions and then they grab a hostage and we waive this or 
that aspect of the sanctions. We certainly have no 
international support and the American public is less 
enthusiastic, to use a word, about the use of American military 
force in the Middle East.
    I think both sides of this argument agree that we had a 
strong position in 2014-2015. Those who supported the JCPOA 
said we had this great position; that's why we got such a great 
deal. Others said we have such a strong position we should get 
a better deal.
    Now we're in a weaker position. Others during this hearing 
have argued that we need to create in the minds in Tehran a 
credible threat of military force. In order to do that we would 
have to have a credible threat of military force.
    I think both doves and hawks agree that it'd be great for 
Tehran to fear military action and then not have to engage in 
the military action. But I think that the risk of--well, I 
think the American people might support action if it was highly 
effective and not terribly costly.
    And so I'll ask--and I hope I pronounce your name right, 
Mr. Taleblu--how vulnerable is the Iran nuclear program? Not to 
commandos on the ground, an invasion, and a million forces. I 
realize if we could deploy a million troops we could do 
something.
    How vulnerable is that program? How many years or months 
could it be set back by two or 3 days of American Air Force 
action?
    Mr. Taleblu. Thank you, Congressman. It's an important 
question.
    I do not think any air campaign of, you know, two or 3 days 
would totally resolve the Iranian nuclear program and because 
Iran is likely to respond it would beget a cycle of escalation 
that the U.S. or Israel or whatever State engaging in the 
military option would have to be prepared to absorb, offset, 
deter, and, again, kinetically respond to.
    Mr. Sherman. I think the----
    Mr. Taleblu. I think it'll be, you know, several thousand 
sorties. But never forget this. There's always a bigger bomb. 
If the Iranians tunnel deeper the Americans produce different, 
you know, massive ordnance penetrators.
    The U.S. should not be in the business, even rhetorically, 
of diminishing its own military deterrence. So I have 
confidence in the U.S. military capability. It's more a 
question of making sure that the Islamic Republic fears that.
    Mr. Sherman. But you both--you have confidence in the 
ability but a few days of bombing wouldn't set them back very 
far.
    Mr. Taleblu. Well, why would you engage in a limited--a 
time-limited campaign? Why would the U.S. limit its duration?
    Mr. Sherman. OK. Because the American people pulled--
demanded that we pull out of Afghanistan. The American people 
demanded; we pulled out of Iraq.
    Mr. Taleblu. That's right.
    Mr. Sherman. Neither political party was in favor of even 
leaving a few thousand troops in Afghanistan, and you cannot 
have a credible threat of military force if the military force 
that is credible does not credibly correlate with the public 
opinion in a democracy.
    But let me move on to another question and that is we have 
in the past provided tiny amounts of open aid to pro-democracy 
forces in Iran. I remember it was once national headline that 
we provided $3 million, the first time I saw $3 million above 
the fold in the newspaper back when we had newspapers.
    Should we be providing covert or overt aid to democracy 
forces and to what--and I realize one of our witnesses spoke 
eloquently about standing with the people. We could put 
economic pressure on the regime, which may hurt the Iranian 
people. But what about funding democracy forces?
    Ms. Maloney, with those forces be more successful if they 
were funded and would they be hurt by being associated by the--
with American aid?
    Ms. Maloney. This is an issue I've talked and written about 
and I will say my own views have changed over the years. I have 
worried about the taint that American funding might put on 
legitimately Iranian groups in----
    Mr. Sherman. Although that taint will exist in either case. 
If we do not give them money Tehran will say we do and if we do 
give them money we'll say we do not. So----
    Ms. Maloney. And that's exactly the position that I hold 
today. I think that we need to put all of our efforts toward 
helping the Iranian people to see what they've been fighting 
for for more than a century.
    I do believe that the regime is more fragile than it has 
ever been despite the apparent diplomatic heft that it has 
through its relationships with Russia and China, and I do 
believe that the Iranian people are more coherent in terms of 
their own mobilization against the regime and that what we saw 
last September with the protests in the wake of the death of 
Mahsa Amini will 1 day be seen as the beginning of the end of 
the Islamic Republic.
    Mr. Sherman. Well, I hope someday that we're as robust as 
Tehran accuses us of being and I regard the greatest weakness 
of that regime not a weakness that they do not have enough 
concrete protecting their nuclear facility but that they do not 
have the support of the Iranian people.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Brad Sherman.
    We now proceed to Congressman Mike Lawler of New York.
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I'd like to enter one of our witnesses, Mr. Behnam 
Ben Taleblu, his report on Iran's ballistic missile program 
into the record, specifically pages 21 to 29.
    Now----
    Mr. Wilson. It shall be admitted.
    [The information referred to follows:]

                                  FDD
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4431.015

    Mr. Lawler. Thank you. On Monday, the 22d anniversary of 
September 11th, 2001, the Biden Administration informed 
Congress that it struck a deal with Iran to swap prisoners and 
release $6 billion in frozen Iranian funds.
    Let me be very clear. Our President, Joe Biden, announced 
that he would give the worst State sponsor of terrorism $6 
billion on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in the 
history of our Nation.
    It is unconscionable, and while this Administration claims 
the funds will be spent on humanitarian aid the Iranian 
president said, quote, ``This money belongs to the Iranian 
people, the Iranian government. So the Islamic Republic of Iran 
will decide what to do with this money,'' end quote.
    This Administration should be absolutely ashamed of itself. 
We should not only never be trading dollars for hostages--and, 
yes, we want those hostages to come home, but we traded 
hostages for hostages and gave them $6 billion. That's what you 
call idiotic.
    So it seems like either our Administration is lying or the 
Iranian regime is lying, or both. Who knows? What 
accountability measures are in place to ensure that this money 
does not fund terrorism or Iran's nuclear program? Does anybody 
know?
    Mr. Roule. Sir, I think you can have confidence--and I want 
to be careful how I parse this. The Administration is correct 
to say that all transactions in Qatar will be very carefully 
scrutinized and can be stopped if they go for nonhumanitarian 
issues, package one.
    Package two, this amount of money will likely free up a 
similar amount of money within Tehran that would have been 
intended for the same humanitarian purchases. This money can 
now be used largely to sustain the regime on the inside but to 
fund in a highly meaningful and impactful way terrorism, the 
support of their security services, and the support of their 
missile program and that will be very difficult to follow and 
the Administration will have great difficulty saying that that 
isn't occurring.
    Mr. Lawler. So, in other words, we just gave them $6 
billion to shift around another $6 billion within their own 
country to fund the very terrorism or nuclear programs that 
we're trying to stop. Is that correct?
    Mr. Roule. That is a--that is a fair statement, sir.
    Mr. Lawler. Do you all agree with that?
    Ms. Alinejad. The money goes to morality police to kill 
more Mahsa Amini. The money goes to Revolutionary Guards to 
kill more children in Ukraine. The money goes to the relative 
of the ayatollahs to actually promote Sharia laws to oppress 
more women in Iran.
    We all know that and that's why I wanted actually to 
address that. Gazelle Sharmahd is here. That money was supposed 
actually to free her father who is on the death row. Her father 
is on the death row. American is in Iranian prison.
    If they hand out $6 billion why they left Jamshid Sharmahd 
behind? My chief of staff, Sardor Pashaei's, brother is in Iran 
being hostage in the hands of Iranian regime.
    So they found the tactic. When the U.S. Government does 
nothing they either get the dual national citizen and kill them 
or ask for more money or they get their family member of U.S. 
citizens hostage inside Iran to silence us.
    So that is why we all believe that this money with the help 
of the U.S. Administration and the Iranian government it goes 
to kill more people inside Iran, in the region, and in the 
heart of Europe and Ukraine.
    Mr. Lawler. No question, which is why it never should have 
been released, period.
    In recent months Iran has exported by some estimates more 
than 2 million barrels of crude oil with the vast majority 
headed to China.
    Earlier this year my colleague, Jared Moskowitz, and I 
introduced the SHIP Act to require the imposition of additional 
sanctions on the Iranian oil trade, specifically targeting 
ports and refineries that knowingly process Iranian oil.
    Do you think this legislation is critically important to 
apply more sanctions on Iran and countries like China, who are 
trading Iranian oil in large quantities?
    Mr. Taleblu. If I may take that, sir.
    I would say absolutely. It builds on a very helpful 
architecture of existing oil and petrochemical sanctions that 
the U.S. Congress has helped get the U.S. Executive branch to 
implement it in force.
    In the past there were a sanctions on the sale, supply, 
transfer, and insurance of oil. The Trump Administration beefed 
that up with adding the storage of oil. This beefs that up 
further by adding the refining.
    So, again, like an accordion scaling up and down as Iran 
sanctions violating scale up and down.
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Mike Lawler.
    We now proceed to Congressman Jared Moskowitz of Florida.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And as my previous colleague just mentioned obviously, you 
know, this issue is very bipartisan. There's a lot of 
bipartisan pieces of legislation that are moving through 
Congress, one being the SHIP Act that I'm doing with 
Congressman Lawler; additionally, the letter that we sent to 
President Biden, myself and Congresswoman Nancy Mace, asking 
them to deny a visa for the Iranian president to come to the 
U.N. I do not believe the Iranian president should have the 
League of Nations at his disposal at the United Nations.
    By the way, that happened once before under President Trump 
and it happened once before under President Obama where we have 
denied visas to Iranian leadership. So I think we need to be 
doing that as well.
    You know, on the--on the latest deal let me give a slightly 
different perspective. So when I was in the State legislature I 
represented the district where Robert Levinson lived and as 
Congressman I represent the district where Robert Levinson 
lived. And so he missed birthdays, he missed weddings, he 
missed grandchildren, and then he never came home because he 
died, and this was all done by the Iranian regime.
    And so I think we all support trying to bring Americans 
home. There's no doubt about that. The disagreement is what 
means are you willing to do that by, right.
    And so, look, I am extremely uncomfortable with giving the 
Iranian regime any dollars. But the problem is--and I do not 
know that there's a right answer for this, which is why I'm not 
certain I can ask it--the problem is is that when the regime 
you're dealing with won't make a deal without that, right, do 
you tell those American families that we cannot bring your 
family home because we're not willing to give the Iranian 
regime any money? And that becomes the tough part, right.
    And so, yes, I do not want the Iranian regime to get any 
dollars because we all know more than likely what will happen 
with that money. But at the same time we have to figure out how 
to make families whole--American families whole--when the when 
the Iranians take them.
    You know, on the Abraham Accords I think we have made 
tremendous progress. I want Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham 
Accords. I want Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords not 
just from the Iranian perspective, not just from the Israeli 
perspective, but from the China perspective. If we do not bring 
Saudi Arabia in then they're going to go to China and then you 
have the China-Iran-Saudi Arabia problem.
    And so I think, to me, this is not just an Israel Abraham 
Accords issue. This is a world peace from--fighting against a 
destabilizing force in Iran issue.
    And, you know, I know there are lots of talks going on. 
Saudi Arabia wants, you know, maybe an Article Five like 
protection. Look, I think we should give that to them. If 
that's what would get them away from China, away from Iran, and 
into the Abraham Accords I think that that could really change 
the perspective.
    On direct diplomacy, you know, I'm all for diplomacy at all 
times. We're always talking. There's diplomacy going on right 
now with Russia, with China. We're always talking. We should be 
doing the same thing with Iran.
    But we have to have a credible military threat. That's why 
diplomacy will work here. It will not work if we do not have a 
credible military threat.
    And, by the way, speaking about consistency, there's no 
doubt that there's been inconsistency on the American policy 
here over the last several Administrations and that has harmed 
us.
    But I'm not really convinced I know what the policy is 
today on the military threat. And so I support the chairman on 
that--on the resolution that--a sense of Congress saying that 
it's unacceptable for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. We all say 
that it's unacceptable but what are we willing to do about 
that, right, and that's where I think America needs to speak 
with one voice.
    Listen, there's no doubt that we have seen in the past 
these things work. Stuxnet, you know, that the virus--that 
worked, right. Previous, sort of whether it's cyber or 
military, interventions have worked.
    We all know right now the only reason why the centrifuges 
aren't going up it's not because of anything we're doing. It's 
because the Iranians are not doing it, right, and they could do 
it at any moment. It's not like we have some lever that would 
stop them. They could do it at any moment and most likely we'll 
find out after the fact because they're so close.
    So it wouldn't be we could do a preemptive military strike 
to stop it. It would be post. We would find out that they've 
hit the threshold and then it would be what are we willing to 
do.
    And so, listen, I think maybe more joint military exercises 
in the Middle East. I think showing maybe the Iranian regime 
the military capabilities we have in the Middle East by doing 
maybe some weapons tests out there. They need to understand 
what we're willing to do and then we do the diplomacy. Then we 
sit down with them and we try to--we try to work this out.
    And so, listen, this is a bipartisan issue. I do think we 
should continue to say we stand with the Iranian people. We 
should do everything we can and sit down with our allies, as 
you pointed out, to try to build a coalition. The same 
coalition we built with Ukraine we should be building a similar 
coalition with Iran.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Jared 
Moskowitz.
    We now proceed to Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I issue my 
disgust with what really is going on in Iran.
    Do you all believe that this Administration's weak policies 
have allowed Iran to come closer to developing a nuclear bomb? 
And I'm sorry if you have already answered these questions but 
just act surprised and--when I ask you these questions.
    Anyone?
    Mr. Taleblu. Yes. In fact, there is a little bit of a time 
line. With respect I took--I would take umbrage with with what 
Representative Connolly said about the effectiveness of 
previous measures that this Administration is trying to 
restore.
    If you look at the time line of Iran's nuclear escalation 
Iran went from incremental nuclear escalation overtly violating 
the JCPOA in 2019 but significantly began violating the JCPOA 
in late 2020.
    At the end of 2021 at the end of the Biden Administration's 
first year in office Iran gained, according to outside nuclear 
experts, irreversible nuclear knowledge, doing things it had 
never done before: one, enrichment of uranium to 60 percent 
purity, a threat Iran made a decade ago but only felt 
comfortable acting on in 2021; two, the production of uranium 
metal using highly enriched uranium, which has clear 
applications for warhead designs and metallurgy; and three, 
phasing in testing, deploying, and using more advanced 
centrifuges, the machines that spin uranium.
    So yes, quantitatively, qualitatively, it has grown under 
President Biden's watch.
    Mr. Burchett. Is there any way we can inspect these nuclear 
facilities, honestly? I mean, is this just going to be one of 
these made for TV specials that they just drive around with the 
little U.N. blue hats on and everyone makes a mockery of it?
    Sir?
    Mr. Roule. The International Atomic Energy Agency's access 
to these facilities has been severely restricted. Cameras have 
been denied----
    Mr. Burchett. Can you speak up a little bit?
    Mr. Roule. Cameras have been denied to the IAEA. Data from 
some cameras has been denied. At present the International 
Atomic Energy Agency judges, and we should have confidence in 
that basic judgment, that it still understands the general 
capability of that program.
    But because of the erosion of its access the time will 
likely soon come when the IAEA itself will be forced to say it 
is no longer certain that Iran's program has an entirely 
peaceful nature.
    And if I can add one more comment to my colleagues'.
    Mr. Burchett. Quickly, please.
    Mr. Roule. If Iran is permitted to keep 60 percent 
enrichment by the United States international community, which 
has no civilian application, have we not just agreed that Iran 
can have a nuclear military program?
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir. I agree with that.
    I also am worried about the money, this so-called 
humanitarian aid, where it goes. I mean, are we going to trust 
somebody that we do not trust? Obviously, it's going to be used 
to oppress folks.
    Something else that needs to be--maybe it's been stated but 
what's going to happen? The only way you're going to take this 
out once they get it is through a military strike and what I 
fear is it's going to be Israel that does it and then when they 
do it the people surrounding them will then possibly launch an 
attack on them.
    I do not know how you put the genie back in the bottle. 
Does anybody have any idea? Other than regime change is there 
any other--we have decided to put our--instead of taking the 
gloves off we put them back on dealing with these thugs and I 
just do not--I do not see the international community 
addressing this as it should.
    There should be sanctions. They've worked in the past--
economic. I mean, if we're not going to send cruise missiles 
over there then, dad gum it, the only thing we have got, any 
thoughts on that, any of you all?
    Ma'am?
    Ms. Maloney. I'll just say that I think effective American 
leadership can in fact rally the world against significant 
threats, as we have seen with respect to both Ukraine and 
China.
    I will also point out that where we have seen Iran's 
nuclear escalation it has come after catastrophic U.S. 
decisions such as the 2018 decision to exit the Iran nuclear 
deal as well as the 2019 failure to respond to attacks on Saudi 
Arabia by Iranian missiles and drones.
    Mr. Taleblu. I would also add to that, however, that the 
sanctions of the Trump Administration restored what is 
popularly termed the maximum pressure campaign or maximum 
pressure sanctions--created the same if not greater 
macroeconomic damage to Iran's economy in one to 2 years than a 
decade of multilateral sanctions.
    So there is no substitute for American power. There is no 
substitute for American leadership. That's a critical thing to 
note, and we can afford no owned goals in the management of our 
relationships with our transatlantic partners.
    In 2020 Europe laughed at the Trump Administration for 
trying to unilaterally extend an arms embargo on Iran. In 2022 
Central Europe was the victim of a widening radius of Iranian 
arms and drone proliferation. No more laughing at unilateral 
attempts. We need to build bridges, not destroy them.
    Mr. Burchett. Mr. Chairman, I'm out of time. Thank you so 
much.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Tim Burchett 
of Tennessee.
    And now we proceed to the very persistent Congressman John 
Moolenaar of the republic of Michigan.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I appreciate 
you and the committee for the opportunity to join you today and 
I appreciate the bipartisan nature of the work being done in 
this committee, and one area of bipartisanship in my home State 
is a resolution Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin and I have 
introduced together.
    Our resolution, H. Res. 554, makes a strong statement in 
support of Chaldean Christians and other ethnic minorities in 
Iraq who have faced persecution for a long time.
    Our own government has said this persecution constitutes a 
genocide and that we are deeply concerned about the oppression 
religious minorities in the area--in this area of the world 
face because of their faith.
    I believe that passing this resolution would send a strong 
message to the governments around the world including Iran, 
Iraq, and others that the U.S. will not abide by the 
persecution of religious minorities.
    Our resolution recognizes that religious minorities in Iraq 
have been an integral part of the cultural fabric and history 
of Iraq and the broader Middle East for thousands of years and 
there's a rich history of cultural contributions in this 
region.
    In my home State we're blessed to have a large population 
of Chaldeans who have made our community a better place. They 
contribute to Michigan society in many ways and many of those 
who had to flee to escape persecution remain connected to their 
homeland.
    I hope that as this committee looks at ending Iran's malign 
activities around the world that it considers the plight of 
religious minorities in the Middle East who are often targeted 
for violence and oppression. Chaldeans, Yazidis, and other 
groups have faced horrific events and many of their ancestral 
communities have been forever changed.
    Iran's violent actions in destabilizing the region have no 
doubt contributed to the cycles of bloodshed. We also know that 
Iran wants to destabilize Iraq, its government, and the people 
who live there.
    This includes dividing the population and turning people of 
different faiths against one another and I believe that passing 
H. Res. 554 will affirm the support of the United States for 
the religious and ethnic minority survivors of genocide in 
Iraq.
    When we stand with them we send a clear message to Iran and 
others about religious freedom, our own values, and how we 
expect Chaldeans and other religious minorities of Iraq to be 
treated by their own government and others.
    Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak 
today and I do appreciate our witnesses and was hoping I could 
ask you a few questions.
    Mr. Roule, there's a territory in northern Iraq that is 
neither firmly in the control of the Iraqi central government 
nor the Kurdistan regional government. Iran and Iranian-backed 
militia have filled this void.
    Could you explain what means are available for the U.S. in 
this part of Iraq to further the independence and freedom of 
the indigenous populations in these areas?
    Mr. Roule. Thank you.
    Iran's efforts to use its own personnel and proxies to 
occupy portions of eastern Syria and western Iraq is done for a 
variety of reasons to include the ability to build a land route 
to deliver weapons from Iran to Syria to Lebanese Hezbollah.
    Interdiction and prevention of this greatly increases 
stability in the Middle East. The best way that we can work 
this is by working through local partners who know the area the 
best and we have a variety of very strong local partners. This 
will be complicated. And also strong intelligence collection 
regarding Iranian and proxy activities will be needed.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Taleblu, the Iraqi constitution nominally 
acknowledges the right to religious freedoms and expressly name 
the minorities to which this applies. Yet, influenced by Iran 
they continue to move in the direction of a theocracy, which is 
the antithesis to religious freedom. What levers does the U.S. 
Government have in this regard?
    Mr. Taleblu. Well, there's likely several levels but one is 
actually making sure the U.S. has an Iraq policy. I'm not quite 
sure we have one. At best it's like a hybrid AfPak policy on 
counter ISIS between the territories that Norm mentioned 
between Syria and Iraq.
    We actually need a whole of Iraq policy. The Iraqis 
routinely come asking for sanctions waivers. There was just $10 
billion given to the Iranians by way of Iraq. There's lots of 
levers for pressure there.
    There's the continuing--what's left of the continuing 
counter ISIS campaign. There is potential efforts to help get 
foreign direct investment into Iraq's energy sector. There's 
tons of desalinization and environmental programs that could be 
used.
    In short, if we do not have an Iraq policy none of these 
will function as real levers for us to effect any kind of 
change on the ground. But any kind of change on the ground 
would require a sustained political interest and appetite in 
that in America, which, with immense respect, I do not see.
    Mr. Moolenaar. I want to, again, thank you for all being 
here and your testimony today.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman John 
Moolenaar, and we appreciate very much your dedication to the 
people of Michigan that you have been here for the entire 
hearing and actually paid attention and so we appreciate your 
attention and your dedication to the people of Michigan.
    Along with that, as we conclude I want to thank the 
witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for 
their questions, along with the talented and dedicated 
congressional staff who have helped today and they're available 
to you 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
    The members of the subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. The witnesses are invited to remain in place 
for a picture with the committee members present.
    With that, we are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                            APPENDIX

         STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]