📋 Tender Overview
U.S Senator Chris Murphy D-Conn. Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near East South Asia Central Asia and Counterterrorism and a member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to highlight the failures of Trumps maximum pressure campaign in Iran and explain why reaching a new nuclear agreement is critical to the security of the United States and our allies.On the failed policy of four years of maximum pressure in Iran Murphy said Not only did Iran not come to the table on everything they came to the table on nothing. Their behavior in the region got much worse and much more adversarial to U.S. Interests. Just look at the reality on the ground in a place like Lebanon or Yemen or Iraq or Syria. At the end of Trumps term did Iran have more or less influence in those places Unquestionably more. More integrated with the Houthis. By the end of Trumps term they were in charge of the Lebanese government. There was less separation between the Iraqi power structure and Tehran. At the end of that four year period of time testing maximum pressure Iran was more deeply involved with its proxies than ever before. They were not negotiating with the United States on any of the conditions that the Trump administration laid down for us. And they were shooting at us.Murphy added And so Im not sure why we have to do a lot of guessing now as to whether were better off with or without a nuclear agreement with Iran. Because heres what we got from maximum pressure American troops under fire more support for proxies no hopes of negotiation and the icing on the cake an Iranian nuclear program that is now weeks away from having enough fissile material to produce a nuclear weapon. Compare that with a year away during the time of the agreement.We just see what the Iranian government is doing right now on the streets of Tehran brutally repressing another wave of protests. We listen to what the Iranian President said on TV just this week denying the Holocaust. These are our adversaries. This is our enemy. But all throughout American history weve understood that there are times when it makes sense to sit down across the table with your enemy and your adversary and engage in a diplomatic conversation thats good for you and good for the world Murphy concluded.A full transcript of his remarks can be found belowReserving the right to object I have such respect for my colleague from Oklahoma. Weve are often on the same side of issues related to matters of national security in the Middle East. But I disagree with his analysis that hes presented here today. Let me make just a remark or two about his immediate request and then make a few remarks about the broader work to try to protect the world from a nuclear weapons armed Iran.First as I understand it and Ive just had a few days to take a look at the underlying legislation it would significantly remove the administrations discretion to waive sanctions or to enter into certain oil sales or authorized business with Iranian financial institutions in that only a treaty entered into by the United States would provide that authority to the administration. I think thats generally bad policy.We can imagine we can imagine a whole set of diplomatic engagements with any nation including Iran in which an executive may wish to toggle sanctions or licenses in order to provoke some behavior beneficial to the United States. Thats in fact why we regularly build waivers into our sanctions statutes. And so to suggest that on Iran policy the president is going to have no ability to impact sanctions or licenses until a treaty is entered into ties the administrations hands - both Republican and Democratic administrations in a way that I simply dont think is helpful.I understand that my friends argument - he was not a supporter of the JCPOA and he does not desire for the United States to enter back into a nuclear agreement with Iran. And at the heart of this request is the essence of President Trumps Iran policy. The idea that if we just keep hammering Iran with sanctions that either their behavior will get better or they will at some point choose to come to the table and do a comprehensive deal the nuclear program their ballistic missile program their support for terrorism.I think that was a credible argument back during the Obama administration. Many people said Obama shouldnt give Iran anything until Iran comes to the table on everything. This Congress went a different way. We ended up taking a vote that by our rules allowed for the nuclear agreement to go forward. But we now have the benefit of the oppositions argument to the JCPOA having been tested for four years.Trump basically took that philosophy - Keep sanctioning Iran. Dont worry about the fact that its unilateral. And eventually Iran will come to the table on everything - he tested that for four years. And it was an unmitigated disaster an unmitigated disaster.Not only did Iran not come to the table on everything they came to the table on nothing. Their behavior in the region got much worse and much more adversarial to U.S. Interests. Just look at the reality on the ground in a place like Lebanon or Yemen or Iraq or Syria. At the end of Trumps term did Iran have more or less influence in those places Unquestionably more. More integrated with the Houthis. By the end of Trumps term they were in charge of the Lebanese government. There was less separation between the Iraqi power structure and Tehran.At the end of that four year period of time testing maximum pressure Iran was more deeply involved with its proxies than ever before. They were not negotiating with the United States on any of the conditions that the Trump administration laid down for us. And they were shooting at us.
