Iran, Human Rights, Appeasement and Carrot/Sticks Debate - Congressional Record Vol. 166 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2020 No. 8
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2020-01-14/pdf/CREC-2020-01-14.pdf
IRAN
Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President,
every day brings more repudiation of
the conventional wisdom of the Democratic foreign policy establishment,
breathlessly—breathlessly—amplified
by the mainstream media, that the
strike on Soleimani would unite Iranians behind the regime. Remember,
that is what they were all saying, that
the strike on Soleimani would unite
Iranians behind the regime. Proud Iranians continue, however, to take to the
streets not to rage against America or
Israel but to vent their frustration
against the corrupt, theocratic regime
that has led Iran down a ruinous path.
I spoke about these protests before
the strike on Soleimani, and I will continue to speak out about them. I have
long believed the United States should
care about human rights and democracy, whether in Russia, China, Hong
Kong, Burma, Cuba, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Syria, or Iran. The promotion of human rights and the defense of democracy should not necessarily be the driving force of our foreign policy, but it should be an important component.
I ask my Democratic colleagues who
share this view to set aside their hatred for Donald Trump—even just for a
moment—and to step back to look at
what has been happening across Iran
for years: the repression of women, the
persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, and the brutal suppression of
dissent.
Was the Obama administration right
to meet the 2009 Green Revolution with
silence?
Consider the story of Iran’s only female Olympic medalist, who this week
defected—defected—from Iran and requested asylum; or the Iranian state
TV broadcasters who quit, apologizing
to the public for years of lying on behalf of the mullahs; or the innocent
protesters who are being killed and
wounded by agents of the state.
These are well-known realities. They
were well known when, 12 days ago, the
United States took the most dangerous
terrorist off the battlefield, but
mystifyingly, many voices here in
Washington and the media sought to
blame the escalating tensions in the region on President Trump.
We heard from leading Democrats
that the operation to eliminate
Soleimani was one of the administration’s ‘‘needless provocations’’—needless provocations. We heard that the
cycle of violence was America’s responsibility. All of this—all of it—flies in
the face of the reasonable analysis
some of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle were offering before—
before—Donald Trump became President.
In 2007, 30 Democratic Senators
joined Republicans to support an
amendment warning of the need to prevent ‘‘Iran from turning Shia militia
extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah like force that could serve its interests
inside Iraq, including by overwhelming,
subverting, or coopting institutions of
the legitimate government of Iraq.’’
That was back in 2007, with 30 Democrats.
Few more prescient warnings have
been pronounced by this body, but, unfortunately, it went unheeded by the
Obama administration, which withdrew
U.S. forces from Iraq, effectively abandoning it to Soleimani and his proxies.
As recently as 2015, the Democratic
leader warned that the JCPAO failed to
address Iran’s destabilizing malign activities and that Iran would use its
windfall to ‘‘redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle
East and, perhaps, beyond.’’ That was
the Democratic leader in 2015.
Senator MENENDEZ hit the nail on
the head as well. He warned: ‘‘If there
is a fear of war in the region, it will be
fueled by Iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an agreement that allows
Iran to possess an industrial-sized nuclear program and enough money in
sanctions relief to significantly continue to fund its hegemonic intentions
throughout the region.’’ Senator
MENENDEZ.
So many of our Democratic colleagues understood all this quite clearly when a Democrat occupied the
White House, and it came true. It came
true. Iran’s aggression only accelerated
after the Obama administration’s deal.
The question for us is not whom to
blame. That much is clear. The question is what to do about it.
As Iran’s aggression became focused
on the United States, as the risk to our
personnel and interests grew, after
months of repeated warnings, President Trump took action. I am glad the
strike against Soleimani has provided
some justice—some justice—to his
countless victims, hundreds of Americans and many more across the Middle
East.
We don’t yet know if Soleimani will
prove irreplaceable, but his death will
significantly disrupt Iran’s death machine and will change Iran’s long-held
misconception that they could literally
get away with the murder of Americans without a meaningful response.
President Trump’s strategy seems to
have reestablished deterrence.
The Senate risks jeopardizing what
we have gained with this strike if it
ties the military’s hands and tells Iran
that we have no stomach for this.
America can hardly be defeated on the
battlefield, but we can be defeated at
home on the political front. We can
allow ourselves to become divided and
play into the hands of our adversaries.
Our divisions at home are significant.
Let us not allow them to pollute our
judgment on foreign affairs. Let’s not
make our adversaries’ lives easier by
tying our military’s hands.