-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. There is no question that the recent U.S. strikes dealt significant damage to Iran's nuclear program. Yet it is still unknown whether the use of military force will induce the Iranians to come to the table. Instead, our attack may lead to the opposite effect--hardening the regime's opposition to U.S. demands. From the perspective of Iran's leader Ayatollah Khamenei, submitting to U.S. demands now would be perceived by Iranians as surrender.

It is unknown yet whether the combined U.S. and Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities will lead to an end to their nuclear program or a sprint to the completion of a weapon. In fact, our attack on Iran may turn out to be a disaster. It is unknown. It may turn out that it could be the final catalyst for Tehran to double down on an effort to secure a nuclear deterrent to ensure that their country cannot be attacked with impunity again.

Now, we hear from the same voices in the establishment who were adamant that war would be a panacea that the imposition of more sanctions is the solution. The Washington establishment doesn't seem to be familiar with Einstein's famous definition of insanity.

Sanctions have been consistently ineffective at altering Iran's behavior in a manner favorable to U.S. interests. Repeatedly, as we put sanctions on, there has been no change in Iran's behavior.

Sanctions are often counterproductive. Sanctions immiserate the civilian population to such an extent that they rally around the regime in opposition to foreign interference. Some in this body maintain that sanctions will prompt the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the despotic regime that rules over them. That would be great, but history suggests otherwise. Instead, we may stoke the flames of nationalism by directing the ire of the people away from the Ayatollah and toward the United States.

Additionally, this resolution's purpose--to urge the United Kingdom, France, and Germany to invoke sanctions--is rich given that it was the United States that unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. So it is a bit inconsistent for us to be arguing that Europe should by all means apply and adhere to the JCPOA which we no longer participate in. If the United States is no longer a member of the JCPOA, what gives Washington the right to advise those who remain in it to invoke certain mechanisms within the agreement?

Washington's determination to worsen relations with Iran risks further military confrontation and diverts finite U.S. resources from other more pressing domestic and international concerns. That is why I am offering a substitute amendment to S. Res. 81 that makes clear the futility of sanctions and the needless risk of further escalation.

My amendment leaves room for President Trump to fund a diplomatic solution. It resolves that the United States supports the deescalation of tensions between the United States and Iran, affirms that stable relations with Iran are in the United States' national interest, seeks a peaceful resolution to concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program, and urges the Trump administration to prioritize diplomacy with Iran over further war. Prudent diplomacy requires tact and respect.

Instead of adopting the same tried-and-failed policies of the past, let us today have the courage to forge a new path. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Therefore, I ask the Senator to modify his request to include my amendments to the resolution and preamble, which are at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source