Highlights of Secretary Clinton's Testimony on Iran to Congressional Committees during FY2011 Budget Hearings

Mar 4, 2010

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted Iran in her prepared opening statement to all committees she visited about the State Department's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget, including the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House State and Foreign Operations Appropriation Subcommittee, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Senate Appropriations Committee. Clinton stated:

We've pursued a dual track approach to Iran that has exposed its refusal to live up to its responsibilities and helped us achieve a new unity with our international partners. Iran has left the international community little choice but to impose greater costs and pressure in the face of its provocative steps. We're now working actively with our partners to prepare and implement new measures to pressure Iran to change its course.

Many representatives and senators exhibited great concern and urgency regarding Iran's capability to develop nuclear weapons, focusing on the security of Israel, and stability in the Middle East. Some were strong advocates for military action.

Sen. Jim Demint (SC): "In my conversations with people in Israel and their concern that -- well, my concern is that we may be only a few months away from some type of action that could destabilize the region. I don't sense in the Congress the urgency of timing here of what we need to do and how quickly."

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (MD): "I'm going to associate myself with remarks of Senator Leahy about Iran…. I'm concerned that there is a lack of intensity in the international arena as we push or advocate for sanctions."

Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA): "Just recently the IAEA released a report stating that it found extensive evidence of activities by Iran's military, quote, "related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile," unquote, and this is chilling to all of us. Iran's behavior not only poses a grave security threat to Israel and the Greater Middle East, but also to efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons around the globe."

Rep. Dan Burton (IN): "Regarding Iran….while we're talking about negotiating all kinds of measures to put pressure on them, I think that we ought to also be talking about an attack on those sites, and let them know that the United States and Israel, working together, will do whatever it takes to stop a development program that will threaten the Middle East, our energy supplies and the State of Israel."

Rep. Eliot Engel (NY): "I've just come back from Israel -- a trip to Israel where I met with top leaders. And all anyone really wanted to talk about is Iran. I know we've had a lot of discussion here about Iran. But, obviously, it's a very serious situation, and we all agree that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. And I really believe that, ultimately, nothing should be taken off the table because they really must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon."

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (AZ): "I fear that we will all awake to the headline one day soon that Iran has the bomb. This would be a geopolitical game-changer. And I'm very appreciative of your intensified efforts of late in this regard. I would like to hear your outlook, though, for the next six months. There is just so little time left."

Rep. Jesse Jackson (IL): "in Iran we know they are pursuing weapons of mass destruction. I'm wondering how the administration justifies its approach to gradualism… given their proximity in the Middle East, to our critical interests?"

Rep. Michael McMahon (NY): "I'd also like to just go on record by reiterating many of my colleagues' concerns in regards to Iran. It's certainly time to move on the sanctions effort."

Sec. Clinton responded time and again by promoting multilateral, international action coming out of the Security Council of the United Nations. She insisted that the policy of engagement was effective and that she wanted Congress to be supportive of the administration rather than dissonant.

"You know, when President Obama came to office, he very clearly, and I think correctly, laid out what we needed to do. He said, "Look, we'll extend our hand, but you have to unclench your fist." And from the very beginning, he said, "We will have a two-track process. We will engage, but it's a two-way street. There has to be something coming back." And we will pursue pressure and sanctions in order to change behavior and to send as clear an international signal as possible that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons will not be allowed. ….

I want us to work in tandem as a United States government, the administration and the Congress together, focused on what are the smartest, toughest sanctions that can be legislated that will assist our efforts, because we want to make sure that we don't send wrong messages before we get everybody signed up to whatever we can achieve internationally."

"We share your concern about Iran's ambitions and its program, and we are making the case very vigorously around the world about what the consequences would be for other countries….and we have every day made the case that a nuclear-armed Iran will create an arms race in the Gulf that will destabilize the region that so much of the rest of the world depends upon for oil and gas.

It could even lead to conflict, which would be an economic catastrophe for many countries that are so reliant, and therefore countries should join with us in doing everything we can to demonstrate international unity in pressuring Iran to change direction, and that is what we are engaged in and vigorously right now."

When Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (CA) insisted that Obama's "conciliatory tone" had done damage to the U.S. policy on Iran and had disheartened Iranians wanting reform, Sec. Clinton replied:

"Well, Congressman, I think that the president's policy of engagement has been very beneficial and welcomed by the rest of the world….

"[The Iranians] actually think that President Obama has struck exactly the right tone and approach to give heart to the people who are putting their lives on the line, who know that we stand with them….And what we're trying to do is get international opinion that will force the Iranian regime to change its calculations."

Sanctions were the focus of most of the discussion on Iran, since both houses of Congress have passed sanctions legislation recently and these unilateral measures which are presently going into conference process, stand in contrast to a more limited and specific strategy of 'smart' sanctions preferred by Sec. Clinton. Clinton is promoting a multilateral approach through the United Nations but she did not rule out additional sanctions.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): [after exhibiting extensively his concern about Iran] "I know we've tried to tighten bilateral sanctions against Iran, targeting the Revolutionary Guard. We're seeking the support of Russia, China, and other countries per U.N. sanctions. Are there other things we should be doing? I know the House and Senate have passed legislation imposing sanctions on petroleum companies that do business with Iran. What about that?"

Rep. Howard Berman (CA): "We've tried engagement. And I believe we should remain open to a diplomatic solution. But I think it is time to shift our focus to implementing effective sanctions, sanctions that maximize the chance that Iran will change its decision, change its course and end its effort to seek that nuclear weapons capability….I guess I'd like to get your thoughts on this issue of sanctions that are called smart because they have no impact on the Iranian people, and -- versus sanctions that could change behavior."

Rep. Nita Lowey (NY): We are committed in the Congress to imposing tough sanctions, both bilateral and multilateral, to stop Iran in its tracks. We need assurances that the administration is doing all it can to put pressure on Iran and those countries who are not fully cooperating with the sanction efforts. So if you can, address the immediate next steps and timelines for imposing additional sanctions."

To these questions, Clinton replied:

"We are in the pursuit of a very aggressive diplomatic campaign and we believe that the broader the approach on sanctions against Iran, the more isolation and pressure Iran will feel. It is therefore important that, you know, we speak with one voice; one voice within our government and one voice internationally, against Iran's failure to live up to its responsibilities. So, our goal is your goal. If we're going to go to the international community through the U.N., through other multilateral efforts, we want sanctions that will be effective. And we think the broader the more likely that is to be."

"We hope that the next 30 to 60 days will see a sanctions resolution emerge in New York, and we also have made clear with others of our allies and partners that whatever comes out of New York we may pursue bilateral or multilateral sanctions on top of whatever can be the result of the Security Council deliberations."

Sen. John Kerry (MA) asked Sec. Clinton whether congressional sanctions were in accord with her approach saying: "Deputy Secretary Steinberg wrote us expressing concerns that the legislation would, quote, "weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts." I know you have submitted a number of proposed changes at this point, so do you want to sort of just share what you might hope would come out of the Congress and why at this moment?" Clinton in responding suggested that, as they stand, the bills do not fit the Obama administration's efforts:

Our goal is to support the purpose and principles of the congressional bills that have been passed that are now in conference, but to work closely with you with some suggestions about how they would better fit into our agenda in the security council, in the multilateral world, to give the president some flexibility so that we can come out of the legislative process with a really strong tool and not just a statement of concern that won't really dovetail with what we're trying to achieve.

Will the Obama administration be considering military action? Sanctions are a coercive force that leads many to wonder what the next step will be. Sec. Clinton's remarks suggest that U.S. military intervention is not imminent, but troublingly she does not firmly deny that it is part of the administration's plan.

Rep. Barbara Lee (CA): "Of course, I'm a strong opponent of the use of military force…. The possibility of sanctions I don't believe should ever be viewed as a checkmark, you know, on the path to war, which is what actually the Wall Street Journal editorialized…. So I -- am I correct in characterizing the fact that the administration's position that a military strike in Iran is neither appropriate nor preferable to other means of resolving this challenge?"

Sec. Clinton: "the administration has consistently said that all options may be on the table, but we are trying to set the table with sanctions, with pressure to change the behavior of the Iranian regime. That is our focus. That is what we're planning. That is what we're doing, and … that is our preference that we proceed as vigorously and intensely as we can to create the conditions for the Iranian's change of behavior."