Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S31-S32]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAN
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I spoke yesterday about President
Trump's decision to remove the chief architect of Tehran's terrorism
from the battlefield, and I discussed the Senate's obligation to
approach this in a manner that is serious, sober, and factual.
It is right for Senators to want to learn more about the President's
major decision. Once again, I encourage all of our colleagues to attend
the classified briefing which the administration will provide tomorrow.
The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the CIA Director will give a classified
context behind the President's decision, and they will discuss the
administration's strategy to protect our personnel and defend our
Nation's interests in the new landscape. I would ask every Senator on
both sides to bring an open mind to this briefing.
In particular, we should all remember that the history of Iranian
aggression began long, long before this news cycle or this Presidency.
In the decades since the Islamic revolution of 1979, as the White House
has changed parties and our administrations have changed strategies,
Tehran's simmering anti-American hatred, proxy violence, and steady
support for terrorism worldwide have remained entirely constant through
all of these years.
In effect, Iran has been at war with the United States for years.
While it has taken pains to avoid direct conflict, Iran's authoritarian
regime has shown no compunction about kidnapping, torturing, and
killing Americans since its earliest days--or Iraqis or fellow
Iranians, for that matter. From the 52 diplomatic personnel held
hostage in Tehran for 444 days back in 1979, to the hundreds of U.S.
servicemembers killed in bombings carried out by Iran's proxies--Beirut
in 1983, Riyadh in 1995, Khobar in 1996--to the hundreds more killed or
maimed in Iraq by the explosives and indirect fire attacks ordered by
General Soleimani himself, to the constant flows of resources and
equipment that prop up despots and terrorist organizations throughout
the region, Iran's game plan has been an open book: Use third-party
terrorism to inflict death and suffering on its enemies while avoiding
direct confrontation.
The threat Iran poses is, certainly, not new. Its violence is not
some unique reaction to President Trump or to Prime Minister Netanyahu
or to any other current leader. Violence runs in the bloodstream of
this evil regime.
In particular, our colleagues who apparently want to blame President
Trump for Iranian provocative foreign policy should reflect on the
previous administration's recent history.
Iran exploited President Obama's withdrawal from Iraq. Soleimani and
his agents filled the void and dramatically expanded Iranian influence
inside Iraq. They were able to impose a sectarian vision on Iraq that
disenfranchised the Sunnis, fueled the rise of ISIS, and plunged the
region into chaos.
Over in Syria, more weakness from the Obama administration opened yet
another door for Iran. The Democratic administration failed to confront
the Iranian-backed Assad regime as it slaughtered literally hundreds of
thousands of Syrians and displaced millions more. Once again, amid the
chaos, Soleimani worked and thrived.
Of course, all of this was the backdrop for the brazen, legacy-
shopping
[[Page S32]]
nuclear arrangement that sent billions of dollars to fuel Iran's
further violence.
Even my friend the current Democratic leader knew it at the time.
Before he himself voted for a resolution of disapproval on President
Obama's deal, Senator Schumer said: ``After 10 years, if Iran is the
same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement
than without it.'' That was the Democratic leader, who opposed
President Obama's Iran nuclear deal, and the Democratic leader was
prescient, for that is exactly what happened.
The previous administration failed to confront Iran when necessary.
So the mullahs used their windfall from the disastrous nuclear deal to
double down on hegemonic aspirations all across the Middle East. A
Democratic administration just had 8 years to deal with the growing
threat posed by Iran, and it failed demonstrably. Iran was stronger and
more lethal at the end of the Obama Presidency than at the beginning.
So I would ask my Democratic colleagues today not to rush to lash out
at President Trump when he actually demonstrates that he means what he
says--when he enforces his redlines, when he takes real action to
counter lethal threats against Americans.
Wishing away tensions with Iran is really not an option. The Iranians
have spent decades making that perfectly clear to all of us. The
question is whether we as a body would prefer the administration to
stand by as Iran kills Americans or whether we are prepared to work
with the President to stand up to Tehran's terrorism and shadow wars.
____________________