(Washington, DC) - U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Queens/L.I.), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, today made the following statement during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Iran:

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Even as American troops are now engaging in seizures of Iranian agents in Iraq, and an additional carrier battle group is being dispatched to the Persian Gulf, the Bush Administration remains stuck behind the idea that diplomacy is equivalent to appeasement, and that negotiation is akin to surrender. Consequently, with regard to Iran, we seem determined to achieve the worst of all policy outcomes.

 While the White House intones that “all options are on the table,” the military facts of life argue otherwise. Our armed forces, especially our Army and Marine Corps, are operating on the edge of their capacity. While the Air Force and Navy remain capable of conducting a robust conventional bombing campaign, I remain skeptical that they would be able to strike all the key components of Iran’s nuclear program. Many facilities are extremely well-protected, some are buried, others are hardened, and some have all of these features.
 More troubling, based on recent history, I think prudence demands that we assume there are both facilities we have not yet identified and facilities we have misidentified. Moreover, we have scarcely considered the full nature and extent of Iran’s presence in Iraq, and what capabilities it has to make mischief in other parts of the Middle East, or the rest of the globe.

 Although our military options are dismal, the Bush Administration seems intent on charging full-speed ahead towards confrontation. If we had a credible diplomatic alternative we were pushing the Iranians toward, such gambling might make sense. Without a diplomatic backstop, however, it is merely reckless.

 Without question, face-to-face dialogue with the Iranians would be difficult, unpleasant, and likely to fail. However, if there are no talks, a negotiated resolution of either the Iranian nuclear problem, or the instability and violence in Iraq is essentially impossible.
I would add here that this administration’s incessant practice of subcontracting to other countries the most vital questions of our national security represents one of the most egregious and shameful failures in the history of American foreign policy.

 Achieving success in negotiations with Iran may not be possible. But, without making the attempt, without demonstrating that America is doing its utmost to resolve these regional crises–apart from applying more and more force–our ability to attract and hold allies will be greatly diminished. Other nations expect us to lead, not lecture. Painful as may be for some to acknowledge, the United States has a credibility problem.

 There once was a Republican president who warned us to “speak softly, but carry a big stick.”  Instead of blustering about Iran while hollowing out our military in Iraq, we need to get serious about achieving some very simple but very difficult goals:
first, bringing our catastrophic adventure in Iraq to a conclusion that will not turn Iraq’s civil war into a regional war; second, restoring the strength and credibility of our already overextended armed forces; and third, engaging our European and Arab allies in a strategic plan to convince Iran that its best interests require a satisfactory resolution of the nuclear issue. Anyone who believes we can achieve any of this agenda without engaging the Iranians ourselves on the fundamental questions of regional security is fooling themself.

 I hope today’s panel well help illustrate for us how Iran sees the world, where its vulnerabilities lie, and how we can best achieve security in the Persian Gulf region for ourselves and our allies in and around the region.

###

Return to Gary's Homepage