Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Special Rep. for Iran at Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Part 2  CSPAN  October 17, 2019 2:26am-2:51am EDT

2:26 am
session and appreciate your patience. you. >> thank you. >> senate foreign relations committee will be in recess. itt. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] >> the committee will come to order. chairman.ou, mr. for your thank you service. # advisor testified before
2:27 am
this committee. i have nothing new >>i have nothing new to add beyond what he said so i would answers, as i said earlier in my statement we're not looking for conflict in iran repeatedly we'll ot exercise military force unless we're attacked and the troop enhanced posture with purely defensive and it's to help the saudis to do a defending itself and obviously -- >> i'm not so sure that iran we're that way, when taking sides like we have. withany times have you met president trump's personal attorney, rudy giuliani about any subject involving foreign and what topics did you discuss? * *
2:28 am
>> when i was the director of policy, i know judge michael mukasey, and he a meeting, when i was legal policy, and he brought to the meeting ith him, and the meetings were regarding a counselor issue. there was no action taken the meeting topic. >> and that's the only meeting -- had with him on >> general mccasey came and met ith me twice, and mr. giuliani was there at both meetings. >> and what was the second meeting about? the same one. confirming theou zarrab case? the >> it was -- it is a counselor we don't discuss counselor issues. what i can say.
2:29 am
>> let me ask it this way, then. so you're confirming the "washington post"i reporting thatt" you met with giuliani in 2017 he was representing reza zarrab, helping powerful make huge amounts of money evading sanctions. did you think it was appropriate or mr. giuliani to press for presidential intervention in an ongoing criminal try to free an iranian sanction evader to avoid that would implicate powerful figures in turkey? what actions did you take after response?ing in >> so it was a meeting at the of judge mccasey and there was no action taken after either meeting. and so can you confirm that ou only met with mr. giuliani twice? >> correct. >> but again, it was a meeting mukasey,quest of judge and i know judge mukasey.
2:30 am
of doj ttorney general in the bush administration. i served at the justice department. known him for a number of years and he requested the meeting, so that's the nature of the meeting. want to make that clear. >> you said two meetings. mccasey came judge by twice. -- mukasey came by twice. >> i don't have the post article. >> i stated basis of it and you confirmed it. >> what i said is it was a counselor issue. we don't discuss counselor issues. > but you confirmed the meeting? >> i've confirmed that i met at the request of judge mukasey discuss -- he requested the meeting to discuss a issue.lor >> and the counselor issue concerned reza zarrab, the national? >> i don't have any comment beyond what i've concerned about the nature of the meeting. >> can you not confirm at all "washington post" reported about your meeting?
2:31 am
>> i haven't read the "post" rticle so i can't confirm something i haven't read. >> the inspector journal and the internal state department emails working toou've been retaliate against state employees whom you do not believe are sufficiently loyal to president trump. there are reports that you wrote list of an email with a individuals whom you considered loyal or listed as troublemakers or turn-coats. furthermore, you have reportedly communications from private citizens such as newt and others in the republican party to justify firing or reassigning career officials. service system to protect this sort of politicalization of our our nment, especially diplomats. who was urging you to take action against career state what ment officials and take in id you response? >> so first of all, i can't i.g. nt on an investigation, i look forward to
2:32 am
that report coming out. you're quoting from is from something that was leaked, so i don't have any on something that was leaked. so we'll wait for the report to come out. proper for me to comment on it. as directoray that, of policy planning and in my director of the iran action group, i have worked very closely and very well with all members of the career civil foreign service, political appointees, all manner scheduled appointments in the federal government, and i'm very work that we have done together. rubio.ator >> thank you. thank you for being here, mr. hook. a me start by saying, i'm supporter of the administration's policy towards iran. you're very ieve knowledgeable about the topic and i think you're doing a very
2:33 am
a d job but i think you have very tough job. and so obviously i'm not be able to do o that job and opine on everything i'm about to say but i do need challenge the notion that our decision that led to the turkish kurgs and attack in northern syria do not hurt our iranian strategy. to start by saying that clearly iran is carrying out a campaign that allows them to directly or under cover of surrogates conduct in the region with enough deny ability to avoid condemnation. it's a capacity, by the way, that they have built partially generated by the disastrous iran deal. and i believe that, and i think he evidence is clear, that the threshold they think they can get away with on some of these greatly influenced by their perception that the administration is looking to get out of the middle east, not in some conflict. and so i do not believe,
2:34 am
the ugh i understand difficulty of the job you have i it's credible to argue that the decision with regards to turkey doesn't fortify that iranian perception. think it's difficult to ignore the implications that has on our n and theirn the region views on security assurances, whether it's israel, jordan, .a.e., saudi arabia, frankly beyond the middle east. it's not credible to offering that other countries don't view that decision and see themselves there one day potentially in a crisis.of conflict and so i don't expect you can opine on it. those are my views. about it and i suspect many others do as well. if you disagree i would welcome comment, if not, i do have a question. > i'm happy to take your question. the security counsel resolution that implemented the nuclear revived the embargo on the commission of sales of
2:35 am
to ons to iran is set october in october 2020, large caliber artillery systems, and the like and ban foreign assistance to iran and stic missile program manufacturing, sunset 2023. in september 2019, an opinion "wall street journal" by steve -- a lawyer, who served as president bush's secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation made the argument that the u.s. should the 2231, and the mechanism there for snapping back human sanctions against preserving the arms embargo that under those pro snap s, by the way, the back would go into effect unless the u.n. security council adopts contrary on to the which would be subject to u.s. veto. it's one thing that's important note and, in an on ed some ight argue because the u.s. with drew it's no longer a participant and therefore can't trigger procedure. resolution 2231 defines jcpoa participant to include the
2:36 am
qualifications.y my question to you is, do you agree with his assessment that the u.s. could trigger the snap mechanism regardless of whether or not the u.s. is nonlegally binding deal? ultimately a question for al. do need have the lawyers from state department and other agencies take a look at this question. broad procedure to force snap back is a member of the u.n. it would go to the security council. the president of the council would table a resolution that member, duced by the and then the member that introduced it would then veto own resolution. and then that would then end the iran nuclear deal. i think the question you raised s who has standing to initiate that sequence of events that leads to the end of the iranian nuclear deal and the full snap all the u.n. sanctions?
2:37 am
asked and nce you've i've talked to other staff on the senate foreign relations know this is a question, a live question that you would like to have answered and i'll take it back and work interagency to come up with an answer. >> one last point is, in july of year, i raised a problem of chinese individuals and entities iranian regimeng explore oil. in violation of the secondary sanctions. see later pleased to that month that the secretary of state announced the imposition of sanctions against the chinese and its c.e.o. for knowingly purchasing or acquiring oil from iran contrary to u.s. sanctions. without getting ahead of toselves and alerting people the fact they are in the crosshairs, are there other such that are ll out there available for us to go after? is there more to do in this space in regards to entities it's chinese or otherwise? >> thank you for raising what done to enforce our sanctions, especially our oil
2:38 am
anctions, because that is the chief source of iran's export revenue. now -- we've anctioned chinese companies back in july, and in sanctioned sixwe chinese entities that were oil.rting iranian crude they -- all the oil waivers, there are none. those ended after the six-month period after we left the deal. that we'll d sanction any sanctionable activity. we also sanctioned five chinese executives, these firms. we have -- china a number of times on this subject. 've met with the chinese to talk about this. china is iran's historically importer, and so it's important that its largest importer not import crude oil. that i've made to the chinese is that, you know,
2:39 am
nations, would like to see greater peace and stability in the middle east and to as long as iran is able sell its oil they are going to use that oil to fund their proxy around the middle east. and that has -- that undermines ecurity and it undermines sovereignty and stability. so that's been the message we've taken to them. iran -- that china decides that it will no longer iranian crude oil. it's not an exotic -- we have a market.plied oil there has been no interruption of china's energy needs during period. and so, there is no need for hem to be importing iranian crude oil. >> thank you. mr. murphy? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. hook, the reason that senator udall is requesting you giuliani's out request on behalf of zarrab, i twofold.s one, we're very concerned that policys a shadow foreign
2:40 am
operation that exists, being conducted by the president's a sonal lawyer, representative of his political interests. e know that because we have transcripts of phone calls in which the president tells foreign leaders not to call your secretary pompeo, if they want to deal with the united states but to call giuliani. but we're also concerned about this particular case because it it's evidence that the president's personal lawyer isshadow secretary of state, working to undermine american sanctions against iran. you ery sanctions that testified to us that are economy.g their and so let me ask senator udall's question a different way. spoken to rudy giuliani bout u.s. sanctions policy towards his client, zarrab? this meeting was a couple of years ago.
2:41 am
i was in listening mode, as i said, judge mukasey asked for the meeting, and listened to what they had to say. there was no action taken. >> but you did have a meeting giuliani, specific to his representation of a client who was seeking to get out of u.s. sanctions? i had a meeting with judge mukasey who was the lead and mukasey raised a counselor and there was no action taken. >> there is a report from three meeting miliar with a between president trump and secretary tillerson, who you time, orking for at the perhaps his closest adviser, in which president trump asked for tillerson's help to against rop the case zarrab. are you familiar with this meeting or the request that was made? familiar with the meeting. chairman, i think it's important to set the broader
2:42 am
record straight here with of the things that mr. hook has said about our vis-a-vis iran and its connection to the recent developments in syria. you do have a at tough job to do and i don't imagine that you would have iven counsel to the president to abandon our kurdish partners in syria. not credible to say that we didn't have a syriariran element to our strategy. in fact, multiple individuals to that before this committee and would still testify to that before the committee. say that redible to abandoning the kurds does not change the efficacy of our iran strategy. iran absolutely benefits, unequivocally, from a new inside syria in which to align are forced with assad. it doesn't pass the test to try
2:43 am
to convince us that europe is us with a maximum pressure campaign on iran. extent that i have a uestion on these topics, i'll give you one to try to clarify the record. list of u have this actions that europe has taken, honest.s be europe is attempting to work around our sanctions. is trying to create financial vehicles so that their businesses can continue to trade iran. they are talking about a new line of credit to prop up the iranian economy. diplomatic ave relations. doesn't pass -- it the laugh test to suggest that the europeans are working with us. and so i just want to put this question back to you again. really trying to convince us that the europeans maximum ting in our pressure campaign when we know
2:44 am
actively engaged in trying to help their usinesses work around u.s. sanctions? >> you said that europe is working around our sanctions, to be a nk maybe just little more precise, europe -- companies is what we're talking about. european companies have made a choice to choose the united states market over the iranian market. e.u. does more trade with kazakhstan than it does with iran. 30 of t even in the top trading partners. nothing but e seen full compliance by european companies on our sanctions regime. uropean governments are frustrated that iran has lost some of the benefits under the with our ar deal departure. but that is a secondary consequence. as it pertains to european companies there is no daylight. between more daylight european companies and european governments than there is between the u.s. --
2:45 am
what -- you were sending us a list of actions that countries have i think it's a strange credibility to suggest you've had success in convincing other especially those in europe, to rejoin the pressure campaign he pressure campaign is unilateral. it's not as effective as it could be if you were successful. our unilateral sanctions have been much more effective than sanctions that were in place prior to the deal. indisputable. and en you say, it's true, maybe this is just a matter of sort of making distinctions, our pressure campaign, and then there is europe, to confront and address peace and eats to security. and sometimes those overlap and sometimes they separate. at this list of european actions, it is dozens mean, ions that, i everything from, as i said,
2:46 am
belgium, , austria, france, and xwaerm, exposed an ranian plot to bomb a rally in paris and they arrested several iranian operatives. he netherlands expelled two iranian diplomats in connection with an assassination. the french foreign minister attacks on u.s. diplomatic missions in iraq. visa-free ked traveling. belgium extradited -- i would you reading europe has done a lot in the toe that we've left the deal try to raise the cost of iranian aggression. they have not joined our maximum but they haveign, adopted our position that we eed a new deal, and boris johnson said the iran nuclear deal is a bad deal. >> listen, proof is in the pudding. iran is not at the negotiating table. your ve a year left on term. activity is worse than
2:47 am
before. there is absolutely no evidence that this has gotten us to a point where you can effectuate a negotiated settlement and you only have 12 months left on the term. we're not going to get the greement that you have sought with the time you have left and without european partners. my time.m way over >> senator murphy, i'm not complaining about the time ecause i think this is an important discussion to have, and i'm sitting here listening, talkinghoping we're not past each other. mean, starting with the europeans, we all meet with the uropeans, we know what their view is on this. they are despondent over the fact that we walked away from but on a transactional basis, mr. hook has pointed out, have done some things to help us move the ball forward. they have also done some things get around us by establishing other credit and you. have but, again, i think the debate
2:48 am
apparently we have at least some disagreement on that, that the sanctions, have been put into place, ndeed, are causing great difficulty within iran, and has it gotten them to the table yet? no. have they given any indications they are coming to the table? no. mean, okay, so where do you suggest we go? okay, we'll go back to the beg them to come to the table. i don't understand that. me, i'll not trying to de rangel anything. to pull the wagon together as far as iran is concerned. i hope we're not talking past on this.r >> my point is that to the extent there is evidence you're economy, that's supposed to be leverage to get to negotiate ale deal better than jcpoa. i think many of us would argue to you'll never get them agree to something that was better than jcpoa but you can't
2:49 am
even get them to the table in europe as e they see a lifeline. they see their ability to work around our sanctions through of credit and innovative financial vehicles from europe, and i just don't think we should administration get away with telling us that europe is our partner in trying to get to the negotiating table. they aren't. they are trying to work around he sanctions that the trump administration has enacted, and that's one of the primary easons why this strategy has not worked for three years, and is not going to work as a ehicle to try to get the iranians back to the table before the end of trump's term. a fair opinion's of yours. would disagree with it, but the point about sitting it out may trump's term is over be good, but boy, they have got year ahead of they have got 14 months of ahead dark timessol pretty if you accept what's happening internally in iran particularly
2:50 am
ith the depreciation of their currency. but look, that's a fair opinion that you have. i think that we just have a fair disagreement on that opinion. and with that unfortunately, we've got to go vote a couple of so we'll do that and come ack as we're anxious to hear from senator markey and senator cruz, who are our last questioners. could have a short break, we'll go vote and we'll all come back. fair enough. be at ease. call the chair. [gavel striking ] * come to order.ll thank you, mr. chair.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on