05.17.19

ICYMI: Senator Sullivan Counters Dangerous Iranian Narrative

WASHINGTON, DC – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) spoke on the Senate floor about the threat that Iran poses to our troops, personnel and allies in the Middle East. In his remarks, Senator Sullivan countered what he believes is a dangerous narrative being promulgated by some of his colleagues, and former Obama administration officials about Iran being an “innocent” country that the Trump administration is trying to prod into war. 

“Over 2,000 of our troops were killed and wounded by these leaders of the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world,” Senator Sullivan said in his speech. “The notion that somehow they are some kind of innocent country that we are antagonizing or ‘turning our back on’' is not accurate. So watch out for the new narrative that the Iranians are the innocents and that somehow we are being provocative. What is provocative is killing our troops, which they have a long history of doing – in Lebanon, the Marines – and we need to send a signal that if they are going to look at doing this again or trying to kill our diplomats, it is not going to be so easy this time.” 

CLICK HERE to watch Senator Sullivan’s floor speech. 

Below is the full transcript of the speech: 

Mr. President, I am down here on the floor to do what I typically do on Thursday, which is talk about an Alaskan who is making a big difference in my State, somebody I refer to as the Alaskan of the Week. 

But, you know, this is the Senate and we have debates, and we are respectful in our debates, and there is no one in the Senate I respect more than my friend from Delaware, Senator Carper--his service in Vietnam and as a captain in the Navy. When he speaks, I listen, and I have respect. 

But I actually thought, very briefly--it wasn't what I was planning on doing, but I was just listening to someone I respect--I thought I would offer a bit of a counter view for those watching in the Gallery or on TV on what he just talked about. 

It is a really important issue, but I just happen to respectfully disagree with most--not everything, but most--of what my colleague just mentioned. So I am just going to touch on that before I talk about an Alaskan who is doing great work. 

Just listening to my colleague talk about President Trump's turning his back on Iran, the sanctions that we placed on Iran, which we all voted for here in the Senate, are antagonizing Iran. Foreign Minister Zarif is a moderate. Well, let me just touch on that. I think there is this new narrative that is starting to come out from my colleagues, and, again, I have a lot of respect for my good friend from Delaware, but about this kind of blame America first, blame Trump, as if the generals and admirals weren't advising him, and that Iran is some kind of this new innocent moderate that we are turning our back on and we are sanctioning them and antagonizing them. With all due respect to my colleague on the other of the aisle, this couldn't be further from the truth. Iran is no innocent. Iran is no innocent at all. 

Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and has been for decades. As for the JCPOA, which my colleague is lamenting, I read that. I certainly dug into that. I have been involved in our broader Iran isolation policy for many years. That was the first major foreign policy national security agreement in U.S. history that had a bipartisan majority of Senators and a bipartisan majority of House Members who were against it--against it, not for it. That did not have support in this body--certainly not in the Senate, not in the House, and not from the American people. 

So as for this myth that somehow this was this great agreement, it wasn't. It was a giveaway--billions to the largest state sponsor of terrorism, where in 10 years they are free to go develop nuclear weapons. This was not a good agreement, and this body said so. A bipartisan majority in the House and the Senate disagreed with President Obama. A partisan minority in the House and Senate, for the first time in U.S. history, on a national security agreement of this magnitude, somehow passed it. 

So there is this myth that this was supported by Congress. It wasn't. Democrats and Republicans opposed it--the majority in both Houses. And by the American people, it certainly wasn't. 

Remember, this is the country that, after the deal and during the deal, continued to say what? We want to wipe Israel off the map. It is not a really nice, innocent nation saying that: We want to wipe Israel off the map. They continue to say that. 

Here is the final thing. In my 4 years in the Senate, I have only heard one other U.S. Senator—Senator Cotton from Arkansas--even talk about this issue. 

Starting in 2004, 2005, I was a staff officer, as a marine, to the commander of U.S. Central Command, and there was top-secret information that started to show in the region--and we were out there a lot, the Middle East--that the Iranians were supplying the Iraqi Shia militia with very sophisticated improvised explosive devices that were killing our soldiers and our marines and our sailors. The Iranians, of course, denied it. They were lying. 

It all came out to be true. These were infrared tripwires, explosively formed projectiles that could punch through anything--Abrams tanks, Humvees--and if you were an American soldier and you got hit by one of these, you were pretty much dead. 

I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in an open Armed Services Committee hearing how many American military members were killed by these Iranian IEDs, and over 2,000 was his answer--2,000. I have never heard any of my colleagues talk about that. 

So the notion that Foreign Minister Zarif was a moderate when he was negotiating with Secretary Kerry is belied by the facts. This Foreign minister literally had the blood of American soldiers on his hands. 

So I take these issues very seriously, like my colleague from Delaware does. There is this notion that our allies were all for the JCPOA. They weren't. Some of our most important allies--Israel, the Gulf Arab States, which we have been allies with for decades--were adamantly opposed, and they are the closest to Iran. 

So this notion that we are going to blame the administration--by the way, we keep talking about President Trump. He is getting advice from seasoned generals and admirals to reinforce our military presence in the region because they see threats. 

In the media right now, there is this narrative that the President is trying to drum up a war. What about the generals? What about General Dunford, a very well respected marine and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? Are they doing this? 

I just came from reading some of the intel in the SCIF that is prompting this discussion. Of course, I can't talk about it, but I support what the administration is doing with regard to reinforcing our military capabilities in the region, and this is the reason: It sends a message to Iran that if they are going to try to do what they did in 2004, 2005, and 2006, which is kill and wound thousands of our military members, we are going to have the capability to make them pay. 

I don't like seeing anyone coming through Dover Air Force Base, either, but over 2,000 of our troops were killed and wounded by these leaders of the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. The notion that somehow they are some kind of innocent country that we are antagonizing or ``turning our back on'' is not accurate. So watch out for the new narrative that the Iranians are the innocents and that somehow we are being provocative. What is provocative is killing our troops, which they have a long history of doing--in Lebanon, the Marines--and we need to send a signal that if they are going to look at doing this again or trying to or trying to kill our diplomats, it is not going to be so easy this time. 

I support what is happening there, and I hope my colleagues will. We are going to get a briefing by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the CIA next week on this, which I think is appropriate. Let's remember who the real bad guys are. We are Americans. Yes, we have political differences, but somehow, if we start to make this narrative that Iran is the innocent and somehow the Trump guys--John Bolton, for example--are some kind of evil people--come on. Come on, really? The largest state sponsor of terrorism, responsible for killing and maiming and wounding thousands of American soldiers, the best and brightest in our country, and we are the bad guys? I don't think so. 

So watch out for that narrative. I certainly hope it is not going to be something my colleagues on the other side of the aisle start getting out there. It is already in the media. You have the former negotiator for President Obama making these statements that, somehow, poor Iran; all-bad America. I am not a big ``blame America first'' member, and I think we need to be really careful when we talk about trying to demonize our generals, admirals, and national security advisers and make the Iranians look like they are some kind of innocents when they are not. 

I wish more of my colleagues would talk about the number of dead military members killed and wounded by the Quds Force in Iran, because they never do. No one here ever talks about it. Amnesia.

###