SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: National Security

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Committee-

I would like to add only the recent comments made by the Iranian leadership about the State of Israel. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4270418,00.html

Khameini has called Israel a cancerous tumor and has blamed it for most of the problems of the Muslim world. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4269167,00.html

HE has explicitly stated within the last few weeks that Israel will soon "disappear from the landscape." And don't forget this comment from one of his subordinates "Gholam Reza Jalali, who heads an Iranian military unit in charge of fighting sabotage, said that al-Quds Day "is an expression of the fact that there is no other way but to stand firm and resist until Israel is destroyed.""

My friends- giving our President the option to initiate conflict does not make us the warmongers... it is in response to years of warmongering, violent rhetoric, threats, and lies from the Islamic Republic of Iran. They swindled the world by telling us their nuclear program was for peace- they have attained nuclear weapons. Our diplomatic response is reassuring... but how can we possibly trust them at their word especially when this hateful commentary against our ally continues? We must be prepared for all options and giving the President the ability to initiate military action, either to preempt or to respond, is a critical move...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

If you will kindly pardon my asking, Senator Clarence, why in your opinion is now the best time to act when all we would be achieving is extending to Israel a redundant gesture of friendship and centralizing power around the executive figurehead of our republic in an authoritarian fashion, all while needlessly antagonizing Iran - which by the way still happens to be a country we should be trying to avoid marching off to war against for the sake of our people as well as theirs?

*sips from a glass of water, then looks up from his notes*

First of all- I want to say that I agree with many of the facts you laid out in the rest of your statement...however I am confused how based upon our mutually agreed facts, a preemptive strike could be considered outrageous. Let' s consider the following...
1- Iran is a state sponsor of terror against our nation and our allies
2- Iran claimed its nuclear program was for peaceful use
3- Iran swindled the world by revealing its nuclear program was to attain nuclear weapons which they have done so

Iran has proven itself to be an enemy of ours- it is not a fight we sought but one that is presented to us. Like North Korea a few years ago, Iran has shown itself to be a nation committed to conflict whose every move is to strengthen its position... Iran will only get stronger and there is no indication that it will cease its hostile activities towards our nation and our friends. Therefore- I believe we must strike before doing so becomes impractical...if Iran's military capabilities advance to the point where a strike on the Islamic Republic would risk MAD, that would give Iran extraordinary leeway to wage conventional warfare and terrorism without fear of destruction. We must eliminate this possibility and ensure the Iranian regime remains weak- they have brought this conflict to us, not the other way around

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Thank you, Senator...

I would like to thank President Nathan for the honor of this nomination and his faith in me. I'd also like to thank the man I hope to call my predecessor- Secretary SJoyce- for his extraordinary intellingence and performance in this role and his willingness to give this old sailor a shot... Thank you to you both

I am happy to answer any questions you all have or if you would like me to make an opening statement describing my views, I'm happy to do so...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

An opening statement would be helpful, but I'll throw in some questions now to get things going:

What would your priorities be as SoEA?  Do you believe Atlasia is too involved in the world stage?  How would you best contain a nuclear Iran?

I think #1 would work into my opening statement well so if alright with you I'll combine this answer with that...

1- My priorities in what may be a very short term will be to coordinate with the President and the President-elect... periods of transition are very difficult between administrations. I would advise the President and President-elect to use this period to reset our relationship with Russia. This is not the Cold War and I see a world which is barreling back towards another Cold War... it is important to have Russia not be a foe as they are crucial particularly in dealing with rogue states such as North Korea and Iran

My other recommendations to the Pres and Pres-elect would be to consult with Japan and South Korea to develop a coordinated response to another North Korean nuclear test, plan a summit for the Pres-elect to meet with European leaders t get on the same page regarding the geopolitical issues of the day, consult with Mexico and domestic leaders to end the drug wars which I believe make us less safe, and any other objectives I am asked to work on....

2- If you mean militarily- yes I do... it's taken me some time to come to this conclusion and much of it's been due to taking a step back from my xenophobia, if that's the right word. In the past- I couldn't have been able to bear seeing our nation take a support role while France leads the way as they did in Libya- but in our military operations there, we did just that and it worked out very well for us at the time...though I take issue with the strategy in that region in general. We cannot afford to play world cop...I say this knowing that the results are almost never good. Our under the table attempts to aid the Mujahideen when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan didn't work out well- those things rarely do and we need to reexamine our principles for military action

I believe the cause of military action on our part should be three part-
1-national defense
2-humanitarian emergency
3-defense of allies with their consent



3- All options must be on the table... I believe this is a crucial issue that must be discussed with our European allies, Israel, friends in the region, and other actors such as Russia...we need to be on the same page or nothing we do unilaterally will be effective. A red line is necessary or we end up with a North Korea situation and Iran obtaining a nuclear deterrent while responsible for terrorist acts around the world is unacceptable

However- I would engage in direct negotiations with the Iranians. It was never our policy in the past to avoid discussions with our foes and it shouldn't be now...while we must keep war as an option, it is best avoided. The Iranian military is not composed mostly of guerilla fighters like the Viet Cong or the Mujahideen...it is a proficient and robust force and conflict with it would result in many of our men and women coming back in flag draped coffins...If we can come to a peaceful resolution, that's preferable

My deadline for Iran allowing our inspectors to examine their nuclear program to ensure it is for peaceful means would be determined with consulting our allies- but a red line is necessary

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Any more questions?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Israel is undeniably an important ally in the Middle East.  Having said that, some of their recent actions such as building settlements in the West Bank have hurt the chances of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the near-future.  In light of that, my first question for you is this: Do you believe that the time has come for us, as both a friend and ally of Israel, to start telling them tough truths about the consequences of their actions?  Additionally, I was wondering if you consider a two state solution a necessary requirement for a peaceful solution to the conflict; why or why not?  Lastly, what specific courses of action (military or otherwise) do you believe should be on the table if Iran fails to meet the deadline you called for earlier in your testimony (assuming one is set).

Thanks for the questions...

On Israel- I agree with your approach... being a good ally and friend means having the tough conversations every once in a while. If we are Israel's only ally- we can't deliver them the world. Having said that- I personally see Israel as morally superior the past few decades to the Palestinians...who have Martyr's Squares honoring suicide bombers even in the supposedly more moderate West Bank. Regarding the settlements in particular- I believe we should have private conversations to avoid showing daylight between us (the way allies used to work together) and urge them to reconsider...

On the two state solution- I absolutely see it as necessary. Israel wants to be a Jewish state- the Palestinians want an Arab state. Based on history, I see having both in one state as impossible. Now let's talk about Jerusalem... it is the holiest city is Judaism and the third holiest in Islam. I feel that because of that, Israel would have more of a claim to having it in its territory but that would be conditional upon free access to worship for Muslims as well. If the issue cannot be resolved between the Israelis and Palestinians- I would support maing Jerusalem and international city monitored by the UN

On Iran- of course, it depends on what has happened by the deadline... the goal is to avoid them from obtaining nuclear weapons. I see this as a crucial goal- Iran's terrorist actions throughout the world would be protected by a nuclear deterrent and its leadersip is too radical to place in their hands the world's deadliest weapon. If direct negotiations- which I support- are unsuccessful, and Iran is unwilling to allow inspectors in...I would support military conflict. While I'd leave specific planning to the military leadership- I'd imagine it wold involve tactical strikes against nuclear sites and the destruction of the Iranian military...all of this happening quickly with minimal boots on the ground, instead relying as much as possible on manned and unmanned aerial strikes. I would of course involve our allies in any discussion of this kind and work to have the support of the West

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Any one else have questions? :-)

[CLARENCE 2015!]

:-)

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Thank you, Ben

The resolution I have proposed is very simple- it preemptively gives the President the authority in the event of a second Korean War to act as he sees fit in our national interest. I would contend that the North Korean threat is greater then that of Iran... it is clearly a rogue nation with confirmed nuclear capabilities. Whereas we had to worry less about Iranian nuclear weapons used in Israel due to the risk of them hitting Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem- North Korea has explicitly threatened to wipe Seoul off the face of the Earth

The facts here are simple...
1- North Korea has nuclear weapons
2- North Korea has threatened to use nuclear weapons
3- North Korea has threatened to attack us and our allies
4- Its rhetoric has gotten more bellicose, not less
5- The world is with us

It is reasonable to assume that war could break out at any moment... one shot into the DMZ- we could see nuclear war for the first time in nearly 70 years. At that point- the last thing which should concern our President and our military brass is legislative formalities

Let's show the world- especially Pyongyang- that we stand united and committed as a nation to facing this threat and giving our leaders the authority they need to protect us and our allies

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I did some research on the Iran resolution from last year- you had added an addendum setting its expiration at the end of 2013... I would be open to an amendment setting the expiration for the end of 2014

As for other restrictions- there should be none for the immediate future... we are dealing with a nation whose military powers we can only guess- but we know it has a nuclear arsenal and over a million men in its army. All tools must be at our disposal

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Why is North Korea such a concern?  They're capabilities don't appear to be anywhere near ours, or any of our allies; why do we need to give blanket approval for 18 months to the President?  Isn't this an abdication of our responsibilities as the Senate?

To answer your last question- absolutely not... the President is the Commander in Chief... the Senate has no authority whatsoever to direct military operations beyond financing them and authorizing them.

North Korea is a concern because their capabilities are quite clear- though they do not match ours (no nation does), they are capable of inflicting misery on millions. For reference- I will attach an LA Times opinion piece at the bottom which explains better then I can. Many people have pointed out that their weapons are incapable of hitting the continental US... here is what they probably CAN hit-

1- Alaska/Hawaii/Guam/military installations in the area
2- Seoul
3- Tokyo
4- areas where millions of allied nations' citizens live

The answer to many questions on this issue is "We don't know"... and that is the point. The Senate is not an executive body- we cannot order the President to strike and even if we could, I would not support a bill of that nature. We can simply make it clear to the President and to the world that we give the President the authority to do as he sees fit...

Imagine the plausible scenario of our intelligence capturing missiles being armed or troops amassing at the DMZ... or imagine the far worse scenario of conventional, biological, or nuclear weapons being used on our people or our allies. WE CAN NOT WAIT.... Many experts agree that in 5 years, North Korea will have the power to strike our mainland- but even now, they can kill millions on a whim

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-pudgy-punk-20130402,0,5498167.story

[CLARENCE 2015!]

My concern is that North Korea is simply all bark and no bite.  I am skeptical that they would actually use their nuclear weapons or invade South Korea.  If they were to do so, I am sure the President would be able to get a declaration of war passed.  But right now, I don't know that I can support this proposal.

My point is this- why would we wait until AFTER they had done so? Our intelligence is the best in the world... and any weaknesses we have are made up by our allies', particularly South Korea in this case. We will likely know if they are preparing a strike- and we cannot allow them at that point to kill millions of people before we lift a finger

[CLARENCE 2015!]

My concern is that North Korea is simply all bark and no bite.  I am skeptical that they would actually use their nuclear weapons or invade South Korea.  If they were to do so, I am sure the President would be able to get a declaration of war passed.  But right now, I don't know that I can support this proposal.

My point is this- why would we wait until AFTER they had done so? Our intelligence is the best in the world... and any weaknesses we have are made up by our allies', particularly South Korea in this case. We will likely know if they are preparing a strike- and we cannot allow them at that point to kill millions of people before we lift a finger

Because even the best intelligence can be wrong.  Imagine this scenario: We already know North Korea has WMDs and is about to attack South Korea.  The invasion will presumably happen within the month, probably within the next two weeks.  Numerous intelligence reports suggest an attack is imminent and our top intelligence official tells the President that it is "a slam-dunk" that an invasion is imminent.  The President calls for a preemptive attack on North Korea and then what?  The North Korean government will have to be toppled until a new government is secure.  Also, we'd have to account for all of the country's nuclear weapons, least some go missing.  China will be doing God only knows what.  And then let's say in the midst of all of this we find out it was a bluff.  We find out that the North Koreans had no actual plan to invade.  We find out that South Korea was deliberately giving us false information and wanted us to invade so as to remove a serious regional threat.  We find out that we didn't know it was a bluff because our intelligence agencies didn't even know when Kim-Jong Il died (because of how isolated North Korea is, no one really knows what's going on there, I fear).  So with that in mind, my question is this: how do we prevent this scenario?

That scenario is every one's fear... my answer to you is frank- we can not be sure that we will avoid that. There is much unknown in every situation involving war... the best we can do is be safe. When a nuclear state explicitly threatens to use those weapons against us and our allies- my view is that we must make it clear that every option is on the table

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Aye