Ros-Lehtinen Opening Statement Prepared Statement	Ackerman Opening Statement -	Royce Opening Statement -
Sherman Opening Statement -	Harris Opening Statement -	Levitt Statement Prepared Testimony
Daugherty Statement Prepared Testimony	Kirtley Statement Prepared Testimony	Full Transcript
Darbyshire Statement -	Alexander Statement -

 

IRAN: A QUARTER-CENTURY OF STATE-SPONSORED TERROR

Joint Hearing Before the
Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee and the
International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee of
the House International Relations Committee

February 16, 2005

 

OPENING STATEMENT OF

ILENA ROS-LEHTINEN
A Representative from Florida, and
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia

 

ROS-LEHTINEN: The subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia will come to order. Thank you so much.

September 11th, 2001, will be forever ingrained in our collective consciousness as one of the most vicious terrorist attacks against our nation. However, we have been victimized by the international terrorist network since November 4th, 1979, when Iranian militants overran the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and innocent Americans were taken hostage, some held for 444 days.

I'd like to thank Dr. Daugherty, Major Kirtley, for being here today, and we are honored by their presence.

Since that day, and at the muted U.S. and international response to this provocation, the Iranian regime has increasingly viewed terrorism as a tool for legitimate means to further its ideological and strategic aims. This includes exporting the revolution, assisting Islamic terrorist organizations and other groups worldwide, especially in the Middle East, attacking Israel, and attempting to sabotage the political process, destabilizing the government of the more pragmatic and reformist Arab countries.

The creation of a free and democratic Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pursuit of peace and stability between Israelis and Palestinians through democratic means, are efforts that contradict the Islamic aspirations of the Iranian regime.

In response, Iran has opted to prevent the attainment of these policies by supporting terrorist organizations and pursuing policies that act against U.S. national security interest.

One of the chief instruments for the implementation of these policies has been the terrorist organization Hezbollah, which, since its inception, has been trained, financed, supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp.

Iranians provide Hezbollah with funding, safe haven, training and weapons that have been estimated by some at more than $80 billion per year. Iran has supplied Hezbollah with weapons that have dramatically and drastically increased both the quality and quantity of their arsenal. According to public reports, this includes up to 13,000 artillery rockets, several hundred Iranian missiles and Syrian mortars, and at least one reason account of the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle, supplied by Iran, over Israeli territory.

In return, Hezbollah has helped advance Iranian interests through continued terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies in the region. Hezbollah has been linked to the 1983 attacks on the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon.

I'd like to welcome Ms. Lynn Smith Darbyshire, who is representing the families of the victims of this deplorable attack.

Hezbollah has also been linked to the bombings of the U.S. embassy and the embassy annex in Beirut in 1984. Three Hezbollah operatives were accused of the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, Hezbollah operatives have also been linked to the June '96 truck bombing of the Khobar Towers U.S. military housing complex in Saudi Arabia.

Iran has used Hezbollah to assert a global reach that has been expanded into the Western Hemisphere. We witnessed the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina and the July '94 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center, AMIA, also in Buenos Ares.

Since that fateful day in 1994, there has been a marked increase in Islamic extremists activity in our own backyard.

Today, numerous public reports have stated that Hezbollah has been a critical component of Iran and Syria's efforts to destabilize Iraq, with the goal of establishing a political and armed presence there.

According to public reports, thousands of Iranian-sponsored clerics and Iranian intelligence agents have been deployed throughout Iraq together intelligence on our U.S. forces. According to these reports, they've included the members of a terrorist faction with close links to Al Qaida.

However, it is not the first time that Iran has closely cooperated with Al Qaida and its constituent elements. In December 2001, Matthew Levitt, one of our witnesses today, detailed the beginning of Al Qaida's linked with Iran. He said, "According to U.S. intelligence reports, Osama bin Laden's operatives approached Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security agents in 1995, and again in 1996, offering to join forces against America."

Mr. Leavitt added, "In fact, phone records obtained by U.S. officials investigating the 1998 Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania reveal that 10 percent of the calls from the Compact-M satellite phones used by bin Laden and his key lieutenants were to Iran."

According to the 9/11 report, terrorist mastermind al-Zarqawi is believed to have obtained safe haven in Iran in the past.

Testimony from defendants in the Kenya and Tanzania U.S. embassy bombings indicate that Al Qaida and Hezbollah, with Iranian assistance, have had strategic meetings throughout the years in Sudan and elsewhere. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Iran's fondness for using terrorism as statecraft against Western nations and our interests has also seen Israel as a primary target. The threat to Israel, our only true democratic ally in the region, has grown with Iran's increasing involvement in the West Bank and Gaza, in support of Palestinians' terrorist campaign. Through Hezbollah, it is reported that Iran has not only enhanced its cooperation with Hamas' organizational infrastructure, but is also working to build a terrorist infrastructure and operational cells in those areas.

In June of 2001, Iran sponsored the support for the Palestinian Intifada. It was a conference which brought together Hamas, Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine general command.

Subsequently, it has been reported that Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas activists have attended terrorist training camps in both Iran and Lebanon under the guidance of Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

The January 2002 seizure by Israeli Naval Commandos of the Karine A, with its cargo of over 50 tons of Iranian weapons and explosives, revealed a network of cooperation between elements of the Palestinian authority and the terrorist regime in Iran.

Of increasing concern is that the dramatic increase in Iranian support for terrorist organizations has coincided with the expansion of Iran's conventional military capabilities, its biological and chemical weapons capabilities, its ballistic missile development, and its pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

The rapid expansion of Iran's unconventional weapons program, in particular its nuclear program, combined with its support for terrorist organizations worldwide, raises the prospects of a potential transfer of chemical, biological or nuclear materials or components to terrorist organizations from Iran.

President Bush and Secretary of State Rice have made it clear that international pressure is important and, indeed, necessary to change Iran's policies. This, however, can only be effective if our allies are committed to containing the Iranian threat and holding Iran accountable for its sponsorship of terrorism and its pursuit of deadly unconventional weapons.

We have seen how delays and inaction by the international community has lead to an increased threat and an emboldened enemy.

This was the case in 1979 when we saw international support and consensus to punish Iran for the embassy seizure and actions against our American hostages.

This was also the case in July '92. At the G-7 Summit, the United States proposed a strong condemnation of the Iranian proliferation efforts, its sponsorship of terrorism and its human rights abuses. Amidst European opposition, this censure never took place.

During the 1990s, repeated appeals by the U.S. to our allies to follow a dual containment policy toward Iran and Iraq were rejected by the European countries and Japan. They preferred to continue their policy of constructive dialogue, increasing their economic assistance to Iran and their investments there.

At the G-7 Summit in Ottawa in '95 and in Lyon in '96, some measures related to counterterrorism cooperation were adopted, but again failed to mention any Iranian involvement in the global terrorist network.

Ten years later, I am encouraged by recent actions by companies to divest from Iran's energy sector. However, we cannot, we should not and we must not stop there, given Iran's pursuit of clandestine nuclear programs. Because of its support of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations, because of its continued interference in Iraq, we can no longer have the luxury of indecision.

There is still time, but we must act quickly to deny Iran the technology, the assistance, and the financial resources it needs to pursue its unacceptable behavior.

I believe that the Iran Freedom Support Act, that my colleagues and I introduced last month, provides the necessary tools to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its actions, to induce compliance, and to weaken the regime while, at the same time, supporting the human rights dissidents and pro-democracy forces in Iran.

I look forward to moving it quickly through the Congress, and I thank all of our witnesses for being here today and for their efforts on behalf of our U.S. national security concerns.

And with that, I'd like to yield to the Ranking Member, my co- chair, Mr. Ackerman.

 

OPENING STATEMENT OF

GARY L. ACKERMAN
A Representative from New York, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia

 

ACKERMAN: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for calling today's hearing.

This is a topic that you have been exceptionally dedicated to and very consistently throughout your career in the Congress.

I appreciate that the first subcommittee hearing of this new Congress deals with Iran and its sponsorship of terrorism, because it seems to me that Iran has long been a problem in search of a policy.

I think everyone in this room could recite the grand litany of crimes committed by Iranian-sponsored terrorists.

In fact, we will hear today from some victims and family members who have suffered directly from Iranian-sponsored terrorism. I remember marching with them in 1981, as a much younger state senator, in New York's ticker tape parade, and they applauded all of us, because they thought we were the hostages.

We could also all probably discuss in great detail our understanding of Iran's nuclear program and why it is a threat to us and our friends in the region. We could decry in loud voices the violations of human rights that the mullahs in Tehran commit against their own people, and chastise them for their obstruction of true democratic reform.

But we have been doing all those things, as long as I can remember, and it has helped us not one bit, because we don't have a policy. Sure, we have the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, although, under which no one has ever been sanctioned.

Instead, we have a grand bargain with our European and Japanese friends. If they will pretend to take our concerns about Iran seriously, we will pretend to enforce our laws. In the meantime, Iran inches ever closer to acquiring nuclear weapons.

ACKERMAN: On the terrorism front, Iran's support to Hezbollah has become clear to the international community. The Palestinians are complaining about Hezbollah's interference in the territories, yet our European friends cling to this bizarre idea that Hezbollah is actually a legitimate political party, and they refuse to list them as a terrorist organization.

So, in Iran, we have exactly what we thought we had in Iraq: a state with enormous wealth and natural resources, significant WMD capabilities, and the means to deliver them, and the use of terrorist organizations as an instrument of state policy. But what continues to amaze me is the stunning lack of urgency with which the Bush Administration has approached this problem.

I'll be the first to admit that our policy options toward Iran are unappetizing at best. We have limited diplomatic leverage with them, since we don't talk with them directly except in limited circumstances, and an invasion is, I think, beyond what we can handle at the moment, given our current situation in Iraq.

Even limited air strikes at nuclear facilities would have only marginal effect on Iran's nuclear program, since we don't know where all of it is hidden and we wouldn't be able to assess how much damage we've actually done to the program. Besides, such attacks would bring with them international opprobrium, as well as Iranian retaliation against our troops in Iraq and probably against our ally Israel.

So, that leaves us with multilateral diplomacy, a game the Bush Administration has been loathe to play and at which they have shown very little proficiency.

If a nuclear-armed Iran is, quote, "very destabilizing," as the President has said it is, then we need to make that clear to the European Union, Russia and to China. In short, Iran needs to become urgent for the Administration before it will become urgent for anyone else.

We need to do the hard work of convincing nations who don't share our views on non-proliferation that it is in their interest for Iran not to have a nuclear weapon. If the Administration doesn't start making the effort necessary to get diplomacy to work, then we should all start thinking about how to contain a nuclear-armed Iran.

I thank you, Madam Chair, and I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you so much, Mr. Ackerman.

I'd like to yield, for opening remarks, to Congressman Ed Royce of California, the chair on the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation.

 

OPENING STATEMENT OF

EDWARD R. ROYCE
A Representative from California, and
Chairman, Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation

 

ROYCE: Thank you, Madam Chair, for conducting this joint hearing of the two subcommittees. And let me say you've done a fine job with the Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee.

This is my first hearing as Chairman of the International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this subcommittee, including our ranking member, Brad Sherman, and thank him.

The 9/11 Commission and others have warned us on the point against fighting the concept of terrorism in the abstract and treating it as some generic evil. This vagueness, the 9/11 Commission report tells us, blurs any counterterrorism strategy. "The current threat," the Commission noted, "is, in fact, Islamist terrorism," and even more clarity is brought about when we focus on state sponsors of terrorism, as we're doing today.

The State Department calls Iran the most active state sponsor of terrorism. This recognition allows for a different set of policy tools to be used, which we'll be discussing today. When this state sponsor of terrorism is striving for nuclear weapons, then we really have the need for a laser focus.

And as we'll be highlighting today, the United States has faced terrorism well before 9/11 in the Iranian takeover of our Embassy in Tehran and the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah attacks took a great human toll, as we'll hear from our witnesses. But for many reasons, terrorism was a focus for only a few in the White House and Congress.

After 9/11, it was a scramble to understand Al Qaida and a scramble to understand Wahhabism and other previously largely ignored threats.

It is now our responsibility to focus on these challenges as never before, while resisting what I would call easy answers and simplistic solutions. Just as this problem has been a long time in the making, we're going to be at this, seeking solutions, for a long, long, long time.

And I think we've got a pretty good sense of the severity of the Iranian terrorist threat that we face. A few years ago, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said that Hezbollah may be the A-team of terrorists and maybe Al Qaida is actually the B-team. Our former Director of Central Intelligence shared this assessment in 2003, calling Hezbollah, "A notch above Al Qaida, organizationally, in part because of its deadly ties with Iran." This challenge hasn't lessened since then.

The 9/11 Commission and others have advocated a multifaceted approach to combating terrorism. This applies to state sponsors of terrorism, for sure. The Iranian regime should feel our pressure, militarily and otherwise.

But the Iranian people, fortunately, are not our enemies, as much as Iranian militants would like them to hate what they call "The Great Satan." We need to reach out even more to Iranians, doing a better job with public diplomacy efforts.

Radio Farda, for one, is underfunded, and the strategy used there is not as robust as that employed by Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, in creating an engaged listenership back in Eastern Europe.

And it's frustrating that reform hasn't come along very far in Iran. It has been actively repressed, but that should not reflect badly on the great majority of frustrated Iranians. For those of us that have listened in to these radio broadcasts and have been a part of public diplomacy efforts, we understand that 95 percent of Iranians on the ground have little interest in backing Hezbollah and other terrorists, and have a very different view of what they would like to see for the future for the people of Iran.

And frankly, we need a dialogue about that, as well, and I thank you, Madam Chair, again.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you so much, Mr. Royce.

I'd like to recognize your ranking member on the subcommittee, Mr. Sherman of California.

 

OPENING STATEMENT OF

BRAD SHERMAN
A Representative from California, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation

 

SHERMAN: Thank you, Madam and Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Congressman Ackerman, for holding these hearings. I look forward to other joint hearings, as I believe the jurisdictions of the two subcommittees will overlap.

Throughout the 108th Congress, I also served as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Nonproliferation. And during the 108th Congress, it was a little frustrating, first privately and then publicly, and then more publicly, I urged our subcommittee to have hearings on Iran's nuclear proliferation program. So today is an outstanding day, because after two years of pushing for such hearings, we had hearings on a closely related subject, first, in the morning at the full committee, and now in the afternoon at this joint subcommittee hearing.

I hope, soon, we'll have similar hearings where the administration can join us, once they have their team in place for the second term.

As I said this morning in this room, there is a lobbying organization that has been accused of stealing a memorandum embodying America's foreign policy toward Iran. I know these charges are false, because America has no policy toward Iran.

This has been a bipartisan, decade-long phenomenon. Clinton didn't have a policy toward Iran; Bush doesn't have a policy toward Iran. It is perhaps less forgivable that we don't have a policy after 9/11 and then after the revelations that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

It is often cited that Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism, as identified by our State Department. Yes, but they're number one by a mile. No other country comes close.

I want to commend the chair for inviting Matt Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and thank him for his testimony, which details Iran's involvement with basically all the major players in Middle East terrorism.

We can only reflect how dangerous it will be for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, far more dangerous than North Korea possessing them, because Iran is not only a nondemocratic state, Iran has the tendency to commit grave acts of terrorism, and it has the ambition to influence activities around the world, or at least throughout the Middle East.

And when I say Iran, I mean those elements that appear to be in control of that government's national security policy. Obviously, the people, and much of the government, are different.

Now, Iran has been helping all the Middle East terrorist organizations, from Hamas to Hezbollah and Al Qaida. Iran is the common link between many of these organizations.

Iran will fund, harbor, train, equip and otherwise assist, it seems, almost any terrorist, Sunni or Shiite, as long as that terrorist is striking at enemies in a way which they believe furthers their national interest.

If you believe that Iran and Sunni Islamists will never get along, you're wrong. If you believe Iran and Al Qaida will never get along in projects to kill Americans, you're wrong. They've done so in the recent past and, if they think they can get away with it, they'll keep doing it.

We should also reflect that if Iran has nuclear weapons, even if we were to develop a Star Wars system to repel intercontinental ballistic missiles, it is not difficult to smuggle a nuclear weapon into our country inside a bale of marijuana. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to do it.

One of those most disturbing approaches that Iran has to terrorism is the use of diplomats, which gives them just one more cover.

So what do we do about this mess? Clearly, we need good law enforcement to try to stop those terrorist plans that are hatched, but more importantly, we need to get Iran out of the terrorism business and out of the business of developing nuclear weapons. And we can do that, and we do not have to invade, and I do not think we will have to bomb.

But we need to lead the civilized world. It means we have to tell our friends, from the Japanese to the Malaysians, the French to the Germans, that if they want a relationship with us, they must put containing and altering Iran's policies at the top of their agenda.

Now, we have the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. I commend the chairwoman for introducing a bill that would strengthen that act. But the act is useless in the hands of a Clinton or a Bush administration that seeks in every way to cover their eyes and cover their ears and ignore $43 billion of identified, and more billion dollars of unidentified, triggering events: investments in Iran's oil sector.

We have sent our troops into Iraq -- 1,200 them have died -- all to deal with a weapons of mass destruction program that was almost insignificant compared to what we face from Iran. We need to be willing to inconvenience multinational corporations with the same intensity that we were willing to send 1,200 of our best and finest to their greatest sacrifice.

That is why I will soon introduce legislation, and this will parallel the chair's legislation, which I proudly co-sponsored, to re- impose a total embargo on Iranian goods coming into the United States. I think the palates of everyone in my district can get by with Russian caviar, and a need to import Iranian caviar has not been demonstrated.

We need to fund radio broadcasting, and one of the best ways to do it is to provide satellite time to the many private sector radio stations, those that are supporting democracy.

We need to explicitly apply our existing sanction laws to subsidiaries of U.S. businesses incorporated in Bermuda, Cayman Islands, et cetera.

I should note that Halliburton announced 10 days ago that they're winding down operations in Iran. They're not going to sign any new contracts. But what Halliburton said was, "Well, we're not doing it because we're concerned about U.S. law or U.S. policy. We're just not making a profit in Iran."

Finally, a couple quick points. We need to authorize the president to withhold funds from those international institutions that provide loans to be Iranian government. More than a billion dollars, much of it our money, has been sent in the form of loans to Iran since 2000.

Thank you very much.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you so much. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from California.

I'd like to yield, for our last opening statement, to my Florida congressional colleague, Katherine Harris. And then, we will introduce the witnesses once we come back from a vote. Thank you.

Ms. Harris?

 

OPENING STATEMENT OF

KATHERINE HARRIS
A Representative from Florida, and
Member, Subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia

 

HARRIS: Thank you, Madame Chairman, and thank you so very much for extraordinary work in this arena, and particularly in exposing the state-sponsored terror.

I wish to move forward and talk about this issue. For about a quarter of a century, Iran's extremist establishment has sown the seeds of terror and despotism and destruction throughout the Middle East, and in light of its nuclear ambitions, the shameful history has served as a deeply troubling prelude to the Iranian regime's future designs upon the region.

Fervently committed to spreading its revolution of terror and oppression, the Iranian regime has not only threatened its neighbors with invasion, but it's also engaged in the alarming practice of targeting foreign dissidents, from political leaders to public opponents. Moreover, the terrorists have relied upon this regime as a reliable source of safe harbor and support.

The Iranian regime must recognize these policies of murder, disruption and destabilization will lead to increased economic and political isolation from the world.

Working in concert with our allies, the United States must send this regime an emphatic message that its policies of harboring terrorists and supporting terrorism-related activities must end once and for all.

Working in concert with our allies, we should evaluate the utility of the tough new sanctions. We should also send a strong message to Iran's democratic reformers that the United States stands with them just as it stood with the brave citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Diplomacy still has time to work in this case, yet diplomacy cannot succeed unless the United States and its allies insist upon a core set of principles, including an end to the regime's undermining of the Middle East peace process through its sponsorship of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah.

Moreover, we must not permit the Iranian government to interfere with the development of a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq.

I look forward to today's testimony, give my heartfelt belated condolences to Mrs. Darbyshire, as well as my deep gratitude to Captain Smith, Major Kirtley and Dr. Daugherty for their service to our nation.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you so much, Ms. Harris, and we have a vote on the floor. And when we come back, I'll be introducing Dr. Daugherty, Major Kirtley, Mrs. Darbyshire, Professor Alexander and Dr. Leavitt.

So the subcommittee is momentarily adjourned.

(RECESS)

ROYCE: The chairman has asked that we reconvene the committee. I understand that there is a short video that's to be shown before the introduction of the witnesses, and we should proceed with that.

(VIDEOTAPE PRESENTATION)

ROYCE: We'll proceed with the introductions of the witnesses.

Dr. William Daugherty is presently an associate professor of government at Armstrong Atlantic State University in Savannah, Georgia. Dr. Daugherty joined the faculty of AASU in September 1996, after having served for more than 17 years in the Central Intelligence Agency as an operations officer.

During his career with the CIA, Dr. Daugherty served in operational assignments in the Middle East, the Caribbean and Europe, specializing in counterterrorism. He was one of 53 American diplomats held hostage by Iranian militants while serving in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 1979 to '81.

Dr. Daugherty completed his active duty in the Marine Corps in 1974, completed his Reserve obligation in 1986 with a rank of Major.

Major Steve Kirtley joined the Marines in June 1977, and in August '79, was just three months as a watchstander at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, then Corporal Kirtley and his fellow Americans were taken hostage and held as prisoners of war for 444 days.

After attending Marine officer candidate school in August 1990, he was sent on an advanced party to Saudi Arabia for Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

After a long and distinguished career, Steve Kirtley retired from the Marine Corps in July of 2002.

Ms. Lynn Smith Darbyshire is the sixth of nine children of retired U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant General Keith Smith and Mrs. Shirley Smith. She was raised in a military family, spent her childhood moving around the United States. Lynn Currently works part- time as a writer for the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.

She resides in Oak Hill, Virginia, with her husband Charlie and their two children, Kia (ph) and Chandler (ph). Kia (ph), where is she? She's not here to correct my spelling -- I mean, my pronunciation.

Their son has been named Chandler (ph) Vincent Smith Darbyshire in honor of her oldest brother, Captain Vincent Smith, who was killed in the terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut on October 23rd, 1983.

Professor Yonah Alexander is currently a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, and director of the International Center for Terrorism Studies, as well as a member of the board of regents. Concurrently, he's the director of the Inter- University Center for Terrorism Studies and co-director of the Inter- University Center for Legal Studies.

Professor Alexander has appeared on many television and radio programs in over 40 countries. His numerous articles and interviews were published in both the United States and in the international press.

Matthew Levitt is Director of the terrorism studies program at Washington Institute for Near East Policy, specializing in terrorism and U.S. policy. Prior to joining the Institute, Levitt served as FBI analyst, providing tactical and strategic analysis in support of counterterrorism operations.

We will start with Mr. Levitt, and thank you all, first of all, for joining us today, and we are anxious to hear your testimony.

 

STATEMENT OF

MATTHEW LEVITT
Director of the Terrorism Studies Program,
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

 

LEVITT: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman Royce, Ranking Members Ackerman and Sherman, distinguished members of the Middle East and Central Asia and International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittees. Thank you all for this opportunity to appear before you today and discuss the threat of Iranian state sponsorship of terrorism.

My oral remarks this afternoon are pulled from a much more detailed written testimony, so, if I may, I'd like to ask that that written testimony be included in the official record.

ROYCE: Without objection.

LEVITT: U.S. intelligence officials regularly describe Iran as the foremost state sponsor of terror. In fact, that message was reiterated just this morning in Congressional testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Indeed, Iran's support for Lebanese Hezbollah alone justifies these conclusions. Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist organization until September 11th.

According to U.S. authorities, concern over the threat posed by Hezbollah, in particular, is well-placed and continues today. According to the FBI, and I quote, "Many Hezbollah subjects based in the United States have the capability to attempt terrorist attacks here, should this be a desired objective of the group," end quote. And in the CIA's assessment, and again I quote, "Hezbollah, as an organization with capability and worldwide presence, is Al Qaida's equal, if not a far more capable organization," end quote. That capability is a direct result of Hezbollah's intimate ties to, and training and funding, at the hands of Iranian security and intelligence services.

I'd like to focus today on Iranian sponsorship of terrorism intended to undermine prospects for Israeli-Arab peace, on terrorist activities of Iranian intelligence operatives themselves, and on Iranian activity in Iraq.

LEVITT: Today, Iran and its proxies are intent on undermining the best chance for progress towards peace since peace talks crumbled in 2000. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa martyrs and others, all at Iran's behest, are currently attempting to torpedo the nascent peace process.

In late January, Hasan Nasrallah, Khaled Mishal, leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas respectively, met in Beirut, where they declared that resistance against Israel was the only option until all of Palestine was liberated. This was even as cease-fire talks were in process.

And Palestinian officials are worried: quote, "We know that Hezbollah has been trying to recruit suicide bombers in the name of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade to carry out attacks, which would sabotage the truce," said one Palestinian official. Another Palestinian official cited intercepted e-mail communications and bank transactions, indicating that Hezbollah has increased its payments to terrorists, quote, "Now, they are willing to pay $100,000 for a whole operation, whereas, in the past, they paid $20,000, then raised it to $50,000."

Another Palestinian security official added, "Hezbollah and Iran are not happy with Abbas' efforts to achieve a cease-fire," referring to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, as negotiations with Israel -- that's why we don't rule out the possibility that they might try to kill him if he continues with his policy.

Iranian agents have long been directly involved in acts of terrorism themselves, and in concert with Hezbollah networks, beyond the terrorist activities carried out independently by its proxy groups. Indeed, Iranian operatives are well known for conducting surveillance of future potential sites for attacks.

For example, in 1998, Iranian agents were spotted conducting surveillance of U.S. interest in Kazakhstan. In 1997, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported detailed Iranian plots targeting U.S. interest in Tajikistan. In Southeast Asia, members of the Hezbollah network behind a failed truck bombing, targeting the Israeli Embassy in Bangkok in 1994, as well as a series of other terrorist plots in the region throughout the 1990s, were intimately tied, and most of them originally recruited by, Iranian intelligence agents there.

Another well-known example is the involvement of senior Hezbollah operatives and Iranian agents in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. Ahmad Ibrahim Al-Mughassil, who's wanted by the FBI for his role in that attack, is believed to enjoy safe haven in Iran today.

Several of the Hezbollah operatives in that attack received training in Iran. The Iranian Embassy in Damascus, Syria, according to the indictments, served as, quote, "an important source of logistics and support for Saudi Hezbollah members traveling to and from Lebanon."

In the fall of 2000, law enforcement officials in Britain questioned a carload of Iranians claiming to be tourists after they were spotted filming buildings tied to Jewish community in London. A year later, Swiss authorities traced a similar apparent attempt to surveil a Jewish target in Geneva to an Iranian diplomatic mission there.

Iranian intelligence operatives have engaged in activity in support of potential terrorist operations here in the United States, as well. Last June, two security guards working at Iran's mission to the United Nations in New York were kicked out of the country for conducting surveillance of New York City landmarks in a manner incompatible with their stated duties. A U.S. counterintelligence official said, at the time, quote, "We cannot think of any reason for this activity other than that this was reconnaissance for some kind of potential targeting for terrorists."

This fits Iranian modus operandi, as highlighted by former FBI Director Louis Freeh. In the late 1990s, Freeh would later write, the FBI wanted to photograph and fingerprint official Iranian delegations visiting the United States because, quote, "The MIS, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, was using these groups to infiltrate its agents into the U.S."

And Iran also maintains ties, as was noted earlier, with Al Qaida. Several Al Qaida operatives were allowed to travel through Iran with great ease in the period leading up to September 11th. Entry stamps were not put in the Saudi operatives' passports at the border, though at least eight of the September 11th hijackers transited the country between October 2000 and February 2001.

The 9/11 Commission reported a persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior Al Qaida figures and drew attention to an informal agreement by which Iran would support Al Qaida training with the understanding that such training would be used for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States.

There are many other examples of these types of cooperation. I'll highlight just one more.

In September 2001, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, now known for his activities in Iraq, met an associate named Mohamed Abu Dais (ph) in Iran and instructed him to commit terrorist attacks against U.S. or Israeli facilities in Germany.

Iran is apparently a commonplace and convenient place for meetings between Sunnis affiliated with global jihadist groups and other terrorist organizations. A leader of a jihadi organization in Pakistan is said to have told that person-to-person contacts with other groups, "Sometimes fighters from Hamas and Hezbollah," he said, "frequently meet in Iran."

And finally, Iranian and Hezbollah elements are very active today in Iraq. While Iranian ministers have asserted that Tehran has not encouraged the Iraqi insurgency, nor permitted suicide bombers to cross the border, their actions indicate otherwise.

As recently as this past December, a group calling itself the Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign, which is affiliated with the IRGC, had registered more than 25,000, quote, "Martyrdom-seeking volunteers to partake in insurgency facing U.S.-led forces in Iraq." The group used the commemoration of a monument, the 1983 Hezbollah attack that killed 241 U.S. servicemen, as a recruiting drive for future suicide bombers.

According to King Abdullah of Jordan, more than one million Iranians have crossed the Iraq/Iran border to vote in the recent election, some of whom were trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, and are members of militias that could conduct post-election attacks.

Reporting from Iranian dissident groups suggests that the IRGC's Kudst (ph) force has established an armed underground of cells in southern Iraq.

And most recently, just a few days ago, Iraq's interior minister announced that 18 members of Lebanese Hezbollah were detained in Iraq on charges of terrorism.

In conclusion, Iran is indeed the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. The sheer scope of Iranian terrorist activity is remarkable, including both terrorism carried out by Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups and by Iranian agents themselves. But the Iranian terrorist threat is especially dangerous since it threatens key United States security interests and American citizens alike.

First, Iran and its proxies present a direct threat to the United States, both at home and abroad, including U.S. and coalition forces overseas. Consider the Iranian security personnel caught surveiling targets in New York.

Second, Iran, along with its primary proxy, Hezbollah, is the single most dangerous threat to the prospects of securing Arab-Israeli peace. Consider Palestinian fears that Iran and Hezbollah are actively trying to torpedo the nascent cease-fire and possibly assassinate Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.

Third, Iran is fully engaged in undermining coalition efforts in Iraq. Note the infiltration of Hezbollah operatives there. It is critical, therefore, that the international effort to rein in Iran's nuclear weapons program include an equally concerted effort to forestall its state sponsorship of terrorism.

Failure to do so guarantees Iran and its proxies will continue to undermine Israeli-Arab peace negotiations, conduct surveillance of U.S., Israeli and other targets for possible terrorist attacks, and destabilize Iraq.

Thank you very much.

ROYCE: Thank you, Mr. Levitt.

Mr. Daugherty?

 

STATEMENT OF

DR. WILLIAM DAUGHERTY
Associate Professor, Armstrong Atlantic State University

 

DAUGHERTY: I would like to thank you for this opportunity to provide the Congress with some observations about United States policy toward the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with respect to that government's conduct and sponsorship of international terrorism, and to share with you some reminders of that time 25 years ago when 52 Americans, indeed the entire United States, was held hostage by that regime.

I have submitted a full written statement to the committee, and I would ask that it be admitted into the official record.

ROYCE: Without objection.

DAUGHERTY: And with your leave, I will just read a brief summary of that.

The capture of the United States embassy in 1979 was and must be considered the first act of state-sponsored terrorism against the United States in modern times, but it was not the last.

Certainly, there is no question that Iran, since that time, has used its own intelligence and security agencies to conduct acts of terrorism, while also providing essential training and resources to terrorist groups, enabling them to attack United States citizens and interests.

The undeniable truth is that the United States government has utterly failed to hold Iran accountable, in any sustained and effective manner, for its direct role in the cumulative deaths of over 275 American citizens and the wounding of well over 600 more. Moreover, the United States government has failed to undertake any action with a force or impact sufficient to deter to Iranian government from conducting terrorism against our interests.

The absence of any creditable response has served only to encourage the continuation of Iranian sponsored terrorism, nor have those of us who are victims of Iranian terrorism received any justice from those acts.

On the 4th of November 1979, Iranian militants attacked the United States embassy in Tehran, capturing 66 American citizens, all but three of whom were diplomats accredited to, and accepted by, the Iranian government.

The government of Iranian subsequently assumed control of the American hostages, and provided all of the assistance and support necessary, including the use of prisons and other governmental facilities and resources. Fifty-two of the captured Americans, including myself, were held for nearly 15 months, denied our freedom by a deliberate policy decision on the part of the government of Iran.

We were subjected to psychological and physical abuses, mock executions, and threats of trials as war criminals, treatment that has been thoroughly documented elsewhere. I personally endured 425 days of solitary confinement, as well as a series of hostile interrogations, some sessions lasting over 12 hours. When I was released I weighed 132 pounds. I'd lost almost 50 pounds in captivity.

Our families suffered greatly, as well, never knowing the conditions of our captivity, nor having any assurances that their loved ones would be released. Because the Iranian government held me completely incommunicado, my family went for over a year without knowing whether I was dead or alive. This stress took a terrible toll on my mother's health, from which she has never completely recovered.

Upon our return to the United States, President Reagan informed the world that future acts of terrorism against American citizens would be met with, and I quote, "swift and effective retribution." This threat was tested in April of 1983, when Hezbollah sent a truck bomb into the American embassy in Beirut: 17 Americans were killed, along with 46 others.

The United States government knew which terrorist group did it. They knew where their headquarters and training facilities were located.

Despite hard intelligence of the Iranian government connection, our government took absolutely no action in response to the destruction of our embassy in Beirut. As detailed in the opening statements by Madam Chairwoman, Iran and Hezbollah continue to conduct acts of terrorism against American interests in Beirut.

During all of those acts, the American government took absolutely no action at all.

It thus became clear by 1984, with the destruction of our second embassy in Beirut following the destruction of the Marine barracks, became absolutely clear to Iran and Hezbollah that they could act without fear of any consequences from the U.S. government.

There then began a succession of American citizens taken hostage by Hezbollah, including my good friend and colleague, Bill Buckley, who was the CIA station chief. Bill Buckley was tortured, suffered a terrible death.

The response to these kidnappings by the Reagan administration was such that it resulted in the Iran-Contra scandal, which did not, it may fairly be said, enhance the credibility of any American deterrence in the eyes of the Iranians or their surrogates in Hezbollah.

Yet from 1979 until today, our government has never made Iran pay in any substantial manner for these acts. In response to the capture of the embassy in Tehran, unilateral sanctions were imposed, but these have done absolutely nothing to deter Iranian terrorism and very little to punish the regime for any acts of terrorism it has conducted.

From 1979 until September 11th, 2001, United States government policy was to look at acts of terrorism only as a law enforcement issue.

And while it's true that a very small number of terrorists from Iranian sponsored groups have been arrested and brought to trial, the overall effect of our policy was that Iran, as a government, and the great majority of the perpetrators of the actual terrorist acts, have escaped any punishment.

Convinced that it need have no fear of retribution or penalty, terrorism has been and remains a central component in the foreign policy of the Islamic republic.

Despite Iranian responsibility for these American deaths, and Iran's continued hostility, there are elements in the Department of State who have strongly resisted any attempts whatsoever to hold Iran accountable for their actions. In this, they see any positive act or statement on the part of any Iranian official, no matter how minor, as a clear sign that the Iranian government wishes better relations.

While there are sound reasons why a friendly and productive relationship with Iran is desirable, the reality is that the radical fundamentalists who have firm control over the key institutions of government, the foreign, defense and interior ministries, the Revolutionary Guards, and the intelligence and security services have always been and remain adamantly opposed to the resumption of any relationship with the United States government.

Yet, apparently, this has not been understood by those who, for some indecipherable reason, somehow can't bear to see the thought of not having a relationship with government. The fact simply remains, you cannot force another state to be friends with you if that other state does not wish to.

The Congress today has an opportunity to influence, through legislation, a policy that will, at long last and way overdue, back up United States rhetoric with concrete action.

Iran is still the leading sponsor of terrorism, and Hezbollah and Hamas still pose a threat to U.S. lives and interest.

Without question, Hezbollah cells outside the Middle East pose a potential danger to American citizens, and other interests, should the regime choose to so direct them. American deaths at the hands of Iranians or its surrogates have gone unpunished, despite tough language by every presidential administration from Jimmy Carter to the present. Likewise, Americans held hostage, either by the regime itself or by its surrogates in Hezbollah, have received no justice.

United States economic sanctions were, for all practical purposes, eviscerated by permitting foreign-based subsidiaries of major corporations to have a business-as-usual status with Iran, for clearly, the Iranians well knew that they were dealing with American corporations.

I note that within the last several weeks, a number of companies have altered their course and have announced their intention to withdraw from Iran.

The United States has an opportunity to likewise alter its course with regard to Iran and with regard to justice and compensation for U.S. victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism. It is time for the U.S. government to implement a strong and firm policy that matches its rhetoric so that the Iranian regime fully comprehends that any future acts of terrorism against United States citizen interests will, in fact, be met with a swift and effective retribution promised by President Reagan.

It is time for Iran to be called to account, not by pronouncements merely deploring Iranian terrorism, but by clear, sustained and overwhelming action for its past as well as any future violations of international law.

It is time for American victims of Iranian terrorism, like those of us who were held hostage by the Iranian government, to receive the justice that is, quite literally, two decades delayed.

The Congress can see to it that this happens, and I ask you today to take the steps necessary to do so.

Thank you very much.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you. Amen.

And now we'd like to hear from Major Steven Kirtley, United States Marine Corp, retired, former Iranian hostage, as well.

 

STATEMENT OF

MAJOR STEVEN KIRTLEY (RET.)
United States Marine Corps

 

KIRTLEY: Thank you, ma'am.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, it certainly is my honor to be able to speak to you about my imprisonment at the hands of the government of Iran 25 years ago and my continued personal battle against terrorism.

For most in America, the war on terror is recognized as starting on September 11th, 2001, but for me, it really started on November 4th, 1979, when myself and 65 other Americans were taken and held hostage by the government of Iran for a period of 444 days.

During this 444-day period, I consider myself to be one of the really lucky ones. I was a single, 21-year-old Marine corporal who volunteered to go to the American embassy in Tehran out of a sense of excitement and duty. I had been at the embassy for almost three months before the takeover, so I had some understanding of the level of hostility felt toward Americans in Iran.

I say I was lucky because I did not endure the interrogations that lasted days and weeks, like my good friend Charles Scott and others. I say I'm lucky because I did not have to endure the repeated beatings and physical torture, like my good friend Mike Metrinko and others. I did not have to endure weeks and months and, in some cases, over a year of solitary confinement, like my good friend Bill Daugherty here, and others.

I did not have a wife and the three great sons that I have now, so I did not have to endure the daily threats against my family and the daily threats that I would never be able to see them again, like my good friend Phil Ward and others.

I was lucky in that I only had to endure the terror of mock firing squads. One of these occurred on the day I was taken. I was in uniform, and after a short period of being held in a small building, a group of three Iranians came in, lifted me to my feet, and untied my feet and removed the rope from around my body and upper shoulders and arms, leaving my hands tied behind my back.

They blindfolded me and led me down a sidewalk, where they stopped me in front of what I knew was a blank brick wall. They turned me so my back was to the wall, pushed me back a couple of steps until I could just feel the wall with my hands, and they let go of me.

It's hard to convey the terror I felt at that time. Needless to say, it was a new feeling.

I remember the deafening noise of the crowd running around the embassy compound and the anarchy.

I remember standing there asking myself how much this was going to hurt and trying to steady my legs, so I wouldn't bring discredit upon my Marine Corps uniform.

I also remember the relief at being led back to the same small building and tied up again, and this was just the first of a number of these mock executions endured by all of us, including my good friends Rocky Sickmann and Dick Morefield, sitting behind me.

I remember my fight with food poisoning and the hopelessness and anger of not being allowed to go to the toilet in the middle of the night, banging and banging to try and get someone to come and unlock the door and let me crawl up the stairs to relieve myself and not being able to wait any longer. Once the guards did come, I had the added task of cleaning myself, washing my clothes and putting them back on wet before the long trip back down the 14 stairs to my cell, and there are others that can tell you the same type of story.

I was shocked to watch one of my fellow hostages try to kill himself in front of me and one of my captors because the interrogations, threats and psychological strain was too much. I remember what he said before he ran full-speed and dove headfirst into a protruding concrete corner, trying to end his life. I remember holding his head in my arms and checking to make sure there was no dirt on his skull as I folded his torn scalp back over his exposed skull. I remember my relief as he opened his eyes and, sitting there with him in my arms, thinking how lucky I was not to be suffering the same as he was.

I remember a trip from Isfahan to Tehran, when one of our captors fell asleep at the wheel, ran off the road in the middle of the desert, and rolled the van he was driving and I was riding in, twice. I remember thinking I was about to die while I was handcuffed to a fellow hostage and tumbling around in the van like a bingo chip.

As I stumbled out and the rest of us stumbled out of what was left of the van, I was amazed that I was alive and only my leg and shoulder hurt. My buddy wasn't so fortunate and went the next six months with a broken shoulder blade. And we considered ourselves to be lucky to be alive.

I only had to endure the day-to-day threats that we would all be tried and summarily executed. I did not consider these to be idle threats, as there was a constant schedule of demonstrations outside the embassy compound when we were held there.

The guards made a point of telling us how we were being protected from a mob of over 500,000 waiting to tear us all apart.

I remember being put in one of those most notorious prisons in Iran and listening to the screams from the torture of men, women, and even children, and wondering if and when it would be my turn. Mostly, as a youngster, I remember the despair I had of not knowing what was ever going to happen to us.

I'm here today because America paid the Iranian government their ransom, and they let us go.

Over the past 25 years, for obvious reasons, I've read about Iran and have followed Iranian politics with some interest.

Our release, in 1981, was brought about by the overt rewards to the Iranian government. The ransom paid for our release does not take into account the immense increase in stature the Iranian government experienced and continues to experience as a result of their successful belittlement of the United States government.

Although I know it by heart, I will not go over the history of Iran's continued involvement in terrorism over the past 25 years. It's been explained here.

The current Islamic fundamentalist leadership appears to be at least as tyrannical as the former Shah, if not more, and the Iranian people are beginning to tire of it and rise up to pursue their own freedom.

I follow the current Iranian situation as related to the nuclear program with some interest and would conjecture that maybe the mullahs are inviting a U.S. attack, because they know it is the only thing that can bring their country together under their oppressive rule.

Regardless, the past political policies of the United States government, in responding to Iranian involvement in acts of terrorism, would appear to only embolden them to further their efforts and actions.

I, and we, appreciate the opportunity we've had to share with you our experiences during those 444 days and how it's affected our lives and continues to affect the lives of Americans today.

Dr. Daugherty, Rocky and Dick and I sit before you today on behalf of the remaining survivors and their families to shed light on our struggle and to ask you for justice.

We're well aware of what's been done over the past 25 years as it relates to Iran, and we're very interested to see what's going to happen next.

Thank you very much.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you.

We thank you for your service and the sacrifices that you and your family have made.

We're very pleased to recognize Congressman Jim McCrery of Louisiana, who's listening in.

Thank you, Jim, for coming.

And now, we'd like to recognize Ms. Lynn Smith Darbyshire, family member of Captain Vince Smith, killed in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, 1983.

Thank you, Ms. Darbyshire.

 

STATEMENT OF

LYNN SMITH DARBYSHIRE

 

DARBYSHIRE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have prepared a written statement, which I have submitted. But with your permission, I would like to set that aside and just speak to you from my heart.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you, and all of your statements will be made a part of the record, without objection. Thank you.

DARBYSHIRE: The issue of terrorism is important to America simply because we are America and we value our freedom.

And I know the issue is important to you as congressmen and women. You have said so eloquently already. It's important because it's your job.

But the issue is important to me for a different reason.

On October the 23rd, 1983, the Beirut barracks in Lebanon was bombed by Hezbollah, and 241 U.S. servicemen were killed that day and many others were wounded.

Among them was a blonde, blue-eyed, bow-legged helicopter pilot. His name was Captain Vince Smith.

His buddies called him Vinnie, and they knew him for his practical jokes and his penchant for playing football on fall afternoons.

His family called him Vince. Vince was my oldest brother.

I was in church on Sunday morning, and as I came home from church, my neighbor said to me, "You need to come in the house and watch television."

Well, obviously, that was bizarre. Nobody watched television on Sunday back then.

I went into her house, and the television coverage of the bombing was there. And I saw among the rubble, as they were pulling out the bodies, that it looked to me as if the building had been destroyed the way a child would destroy his Play-Dough or his Tinker Toys.

You'll see on the screen a picture of my brother. He's the one on the far right. He's shaking the hand of Admiral McCain.

Vince was about to go off to the Naval Academy. My father was receiving an award that day, and we had all been there for the ceremony. And the little girl in the middle is me.

Vince was my protector. He was a calm, unifying force in a family that needed unity.

Vince was an American, and he was a Marine, and Vince was a man of justice.

I don't know who said that time heals wounds, but that person was an idiot. Time does not heal wounds; only hope can do that.

The government of Iran has been perpetrating acts of terrorism and supporting terrorist organizations long enough. We need to stop them. We need to do everything in our power to deter future acts of terrorism so that other little girls will not have to watch their brothers die.

The bill before you today will impose greater sanctions on Iran, which have already been described. We need to do this.

This is one tool in a box that we need to use against Iran. We need to use every tool in the box. You cannot build a house with just a hammer. You need a saw, as well.

There is also another piece of legislation being introduced, called the Justice for Marine Corp Families Victims of Terrorists Act, which will be referred to Judiciary. And this is another tool that we can use to impose accountability on this rogue nation.

Together, the two pieces of legislation will make it harder for terrorists to raise and distribute funds to perpetrate further acts of terror.

Terrorists get away with murder because we let them. They keep doing it because it gives them power.

In order to deter more kinds of terrorism, the consequences must be serious, serious enough that they will decide that it isn't worth it. We must make it cost them so much that they will stop.

Every time there is another terrorist attack, my heart is sliced open again, and I have to grieve Vince all over again. They've been named already. 9/11 was not the beginning, and unfortunately, it was not the end. There must be an end.

Maya Angelou said that history, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, it need not be lived again.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must face today with courage. The events of October 23rd, 1983, have been repeated far too many times already. Far too many people have died.

Look at me closely. As you look at me, you are gazing into the face of the unrelenting grief of the American people who have lost someone they love at the hands of state-sponsored terrorism. And when the time comes to cast your vote, I beg you to remember the pain you see in my face and know that it is also reflected in the faces of my mother and my father -- who could not be here today -- and all the other family members of the men who died in Beirut.

The prophet Jeremiah says that Rachel is weeping for her children. She refuses to be comforted for her children, because her children are no more. And God says to her, "Restrain your voice from weeping, because there is hope for the future."

I am before you today as a woman weeping for my brother, and I am begging you to give me a reason to hope for my future and the future of my young children. I have a son, and I have named him for my brother, and I do not want my son to grow up in an America where he has to be afraid.

We are not free. We are in bondage to our fear. Look around at the security. You cannot get into our national treasures, our monuments, our Capitol.

We are afraid, and we are afraid because it hurts so much.

Ladies and gentlemen, pain left unhealed ferments into hatred, and we can ill afford to become a nation of hatred, because then we will be the terrorists. People who hate commit acts of terrorism.

We must have healing, but in order to have healing, we must first have hope, and we will only have hope when there is justice. And in order to achieve justice, we must fight and fighting takes courage.

I beg you to be men and women of courage.

And, President Bush, if you are listening, I beg you to be a man of courage.

We must stop the spiraling vortex of injustice, and we must reverse its flow. Justice brings hope. Hope leads to healing, and only if there is healing will there be freedom.

If Vince were here, he would be sitting here giving you testimony, along with Mr. Kirtley and Mr. Daugherty. But he cannot be here, and in his name and to honor his memory, I ask you to do everything that you can to bring justice.

Thank you.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you so very much for an emotional and enlightening testimony and for sharing your grief with us.

And I'm a proud co-sponsor of the other bill that you had mentioned, as well.

DARBYSHIRE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you.

And I'm sure Vince lives every day in your heart, and he will be remembered by all of us, as well, for the ultimate sacrifice.

DARBYSHIRE: Yes, he is. Thank you.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you, Lynn.

And now I'd like to recognize Dr. Yonah Alexander, the senior fellow of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, and the director of International Center for Terrorism Studies.

Thank you, Dr. Alexander.

 

STATEMENT OF

YONAH ALEXANDER
Senior Fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies and
Director of the International Center for Terrorism Studies

 

ALEXANDER: Thank you. I would like to thank the chair and the chairman and the distinguished members of the joint committee for affording me the opportunity to share some of my observations in this area.

After listening to the very moving statements by the victims of terrorism, I would like to share with you that, several days ago, I met with a colleague, a foreign general that is with the army, who lost his son.

He didn't lose his son on the battlefield in Israel. He was in the army, but he died on September 11th in the World Trade Center. He happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, and that's the nature of terrorism.

Since I was away on travel, I did not prepare a written statement, but with your permission, I would like to leave for the members of the joint committee several publications that focus on the Iranian issue, and hopefully they will be useful.

One is the Journal on Terrorism. Twenty-eight years ago, I had the Ambassador of Iran to the U.N. prepare an article. He wrote on the problem of international terrorism at the U.N. and actually criticized the United Nations for its inability to define terrorism.

So 28 years later, we are still dealing with who are the terrorists and the use of different terms and concepts, such as guerrilla fighters and insurgents and freedom fighters are being used interchangeably by policymakers and the media.

So this, again, is an indication what might happen if there is a change of regime in Iran.

A second publication relates actually to the hostage situation, the United States and Iran, that we prepared as a result of the takeover in Tehran. We simply wanted to find out what happened for the 100 years of history relationship between the United States and Iran.

And again, today, we are still dealing with that particular problem, and we are encouraged that the Congress of the United States is providing legislation, which is really critical to deal with the problem effectively.

Since we are living with state-sponsored terrorism, I would like to submit, with your permission, a report, which I prepared with my colleague 20 years ago, that was submitted to the committee on the judiciary on state-sponsored terrorism.

And the debate is going on within the policy-making community, the academic community, whether we have to worry about state-sponsored terrorism, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And clearly, the fact that we are gathered today to discuss the role of Iran is obviously very critical.

I would like also to submit a study that we prepared on Al Qaida and bin Laden that was published before the 9/11. Simply, we didn't see the writing on the wall, and hopefully, if we can learn from history, perhaps we can avoid some of the mistakes of the past.

And finally, as a result of a study in Buenos Aires on the AMIA, I would like to submit, also, a report that, 10 years after the attacks, we don't have any definitive results in connection with the role of Iran in Argentina, the attack on the Israeli embassy in 1992 and the attack on the AMIA in 1994, as was mentioned before.

In the interest of time, what I would like to suggest, that if we are going to reduce the threat of terrorism, then we must deal with education and hatred.

On the basis of a recent trip -- actually last month -- that I had in Israel in the region, if we are going to have bin Laden -- you probably know about the drugs that are being sold throughout the Middle East and now in Europe. We will be unable to deal with the problem effectively.

Actually, with all the euphoria about the Middle East peace discussions, there is no doubt that even if a Palestinian state will be created side-by-side with Israel, there are going to be groups, such as the Hezbollah and the Hamas, with the support of Iran, that will try to undermine the process.

And we're already facing terrorism for the next 100 years because of education in hatred.

This is a picture of a television dish that was prepared by prisoners in Israel in order to be able to receive the propaganda from al-Manar in Lebanon, as you know.

This is not a lesson of karate; this is actually preparation for terrorist activities in an Israeli prison, which would lead them to use, of course, suicide bombing men and women.

Now, unfortunately, we are looking today at the Iranian connection. We're looking at Islamic connection.

If I may, I would like to suggest that we have to look at the situation in a broader perspective, meaning that, although many of the activities were perpetrated by Islamic-based terrorist groups, we have to be concerned about terrorism from the extremist ideological groups, right and left and so on. The attack in Oklahoma City in 1995 was perpetrated by an extremist American.

And, also, I would like to suggest that we have to look at other state sponsors of terrorism, such as Cuba. A few days ago, I discussed the issue of the Cuban connection with Iraq in Latin America with my colleagues at the University of Miami. And I must report to you that if we ignore Latin America and the tri-border area of Argentina and Brazil and Paraguay -- which I visited a couple months ago -- we will not be able to reduce the threat of terrorism.

So, again, we have to look at the challenge in a broader perspective, not only on the Islamic issue, and clearly, we have to make sure that we don't vilify Islam completely. We have to find some way to reform some of these countries that are being targeted by Islamic terrorism of the Al Qaida and the Iranian connection.

What can we do? Obviously, each and every segment of our community can play a role. And Congress must provide the leadership. And civil society, in general, can play a role -- the academic community, the professional organizations -- and we have to understand that terrorism against one is terrorism against all.

And we have to mobilize both the civilian and the military community to deal with the problem.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you so much. I so agree with what you had said.

And related to Castro, we recall that Castro was in Iran just a few years ago, and he made the statement and very inflammatory speeches, and he said, among many other things, "Together, Iran and Cuba can bring the United States to its knees," and the support that they have given to all the terrorist organizations.

And you also mentioned a very important point, which is the propaganda machine by Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations that are anti-Semitic, anti-Western incitement that fuels and translates into terrorist activities.

For example, the Freedom House just released a report, just a few weeks ago, on the dissemination of anti-U.S. and anti-Western propaganda by the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the mosques here in the United States. And I would imagine that there's going to be an immediate -- and there should be -- an immediate and unconditional response by the United States to make sure that we remove such material, and that requires our U.S. allies to curtail this venom, because it's primary component of our U.S. counterterrorism efforts worldwide.

So thank you, Dr. Alexander, for bringing that up.

Mr. Levitt, I wanted to ask you about -- in your written testimony, you refer to the presence of Hezbollah operatives in North Carolina. What is the extent of Hezbollah operations in the United States, and those of other Iranian-sponsored groups?

And what are the linkages between the United States cells and the Canadian procurement cell? And what are their targets? What are their goals, or who are their goals?

And what do you mean when you say that each cell maintains direct contact with senior Hezbollah and/or Iranian intelligence operatives?

Those are certainly -- chilling testimony that you had presented to us.

LEVITT: Thank you very much.

I had the honor of serving as the government's expert witness in that case in North Carolina a couple years ago. It was very revealing in terms of the extent of Hezbollah's presence in the United States, in North America, because of the Canadian aspect. I think it should be taken, as a case in point, as insight.

The presence of Hezbollah in this country is something that is not widely available in open source information. But even just from the little bit that is available, it's clear that there are several cells.

The FBI has testified, as I mentioned earlier, that should it become the interest of Iran and Hezbollah leaders, the FBI's position that groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, both Iranian-sponsored, could conduct attacks here, if that was their desire.

Members of the Charlotte cell went out for shooting range training. They had been trained in Lebanon. The prosecution showed pictures that they had in their homes of the RPG and other MANPADs, shoulder-fired missiles, that they had been trained to use in Lebanon.

The Charlotte cell was operating in direct contact with a Hezbollah military commander from Himvijil Barajnay (ph), a Hezbollah stronghold in southern Beirut, a gentleman named Shei Habas Harakay (ph).

They were connected to a procurement, dual-use procurement cell in Canada. That cell was operating under the authority of Haj Hassan Helo Aqis (ph). Until this trial, Aqis' (ph) name was not available in open source literature, but he was known to people in the government long beforehand as Hezbollah's chief procurement officer. It is believed that anything that Hezbollah gets through Aqis' (ph) procurement networks, which is a global network, goes to Iran, as well.

Another expert witness in the Charlotte case demonstrated how the type of dual-use technologies, that these cells here in North America procured, enhanced Hezbollah's operational capabilities and demonstrated how their capabilities, in fact, did improve at that exact period.

They did things like engaging in credit card scams. They purchased the social security numbers and used the accounts of Middle Eastern students who returned to the Middle East, making it very, very difficult for law enforcement to recognize that their identities were, in fact, false. In many cases, they just went to the DMV and informed that they had moved and were changing their name. No questions were asked. They were given new legal driver's licenses under all kinds of names.

In one case, members of the Canada network talked about taking out life insurance policies in Canada for Hezbollah suicide bombers who would "go for a walk in southern Lebanon," -- just shortly before Israel withdrew to the blue line -- and would never come back.

We need to be very, very concerned about Hezbollah's presence worldwide. The Europeans today were supposed to discuss whether or not to ban Hezbollah. All indications are that, at France's lead, they will not, which is extremely disturbing, not only because the E.U. is a member of the quartet, and the Palestinians and Israelis agree that there is no greater threat to the peace process than Iran and Hezbollah, but also because Hezbollah is proactively engaged in operations in Germany. German intelligence reports that there are at least 800 Hezbollah operatives in that country alone.

One U.S. intelligence official that I interviewed for something I was writing told me at one point, "The bottom line is this: Hezbollah has procurement, logistical and financial cells worldwide." None of these cells, he told me, that he knew of is divorced from operational activity. Every Hezbollah cell, he told me, has some operational role.

And if we look at how Hezbollah carried out the attacks in Buenos Aires in '92 and '94, we have a case study of just how that works.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you so much.

I'd like to ask three witnesses here who had personal experience, either directly or through family members, about what did your personal experience with the Iranian militants tell you about the nature of this enemy that we're facing and the nature of Iranian- sponsored terrorism?

Dr. Daugherty?

DAUGHERTY: The first word that comes right to mind is that it's unrelenting.

The role that America played in Iran for a number of years was used quite effectively by the fundamentalists during the revolution against the Shah in '77, '78, '79.

And America assumed, in the eyes of the Iranians, in fact, a much more sinister role than our policy actually entailed. And this anti- Americanism has become entrenched, not only within the ranks of the fundamentalists, but it is almost a key to their ability to remain in power.

They use anti-Americanism as a call to unify the country. They use anti-Americanism as a way to deflect from the internal problems, economically, developmentally, other problems that Iran is experiencing.

And in this respect, there is no chance that it's going to go away with this fundamentalist regime. There is no chance that they're going to ease up on it. In many respects, it is their key to remaining in power.

I think this is one reason why a chance of a rapprochement with United States and Iran is, for the time being, out of the question.

The fundamentalists simply are not going -- after 25 years of demonizing the United States, they're not in a position to turn around and tell the Iranian people that now it's time to be friends with the American government. We're too valuable to them as enemies, and we will continue to be their enemy until this regime, one way or another, disappears, and what appears to be the wishes of the broader Iranian population, in terms of throwing off oppression, becoming more open to the West and having a normal relationship with the Western world, including the United States, is able to come to pass.

That's why I say it's unrelenting, and it will be for the foreseeable future.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you.

Any others?

KIRTLEY: Ma'am, I can't think of anything.

Bill and I have discussed and talked about this. I really do think it is a great media ploy for them, for the despots that run the country right now, and they do use it very effectively to keep the people infuriated and following their line.

DARBYSHIRE: I'd just like to add that I have a very close friend who's an Iranian woman whose family escaped from Iran when she was a girl. We've sat up late often over our cups of coffee and talked about these things.

I can't address it from a political point of view, but personally, on a personal level and from the heart, her mother is still in Iran, and she talks to her mother on their phone, and her mother says to her, "When are they going to rescue us?"

ROS-LEHTINEN: Very powerful. Thank you so much.

Mr. Royce?

ROYCE: Thank you, Chairwoman.

I did want to ask a question of Professor Daugherty. You were counterterrorism officer for 18 years, and taught that, as well.

And so my question to you is that we realize that developing an atomic weapon is a national priority for Iran, and there's issues of perceived prestige and issues of security, but what national interest, real or imagined, is there for Iran in developing this network of support for terrorism? Can you explain that?

And then, the other question I was going to ask you is: What evidence do we have of Iranian support for insurgencies in Iraq right now?

DAUGHERTY: Let me address the second issue first, just very briefly.

The best information that I have seen is that there are well over 1,000 members of the Revolutionary Guards, the Pastoron (ph), Iranian intelligence officers, that infiltrated into southern Iran, have connections with Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia. Al-Sadr's militia has received an enormous amount of weaponry and resources from the government of Iran.

And it's worth noting that, some months ago when the United States Marines went against the militia before the militia agreed to disarm, there again were a number of Marine deaths, and I think they can be directly laid at the doorstep of Iran.

The Iranians see a great opportunity in the coming to power of the Iraqi Shia. They are very manipulative. They will indirectly control various ways, again, mostly through the provision of resources but as well as training and the actual presence of Iranian intelligence officers.

And I think this is a situation where, if Iran chooses to pull that trigger, they can be greatly destabilizing to our efforts in southern Iraq and, ultimately, to the new democratically elected government of Iraq, and I think this is a very serious issue.

ROYCE: What national interests are served by them supporting terrorism?

DAUGHERTY: Their national interests are -- simply, it's an extension of their foreign policy. Things that they cannot get through overt diplomacy, things they cannot achieve for what they would see as the benefit to their country, they believe they're able to achieve by force.

Certainly, when it comes to the United States, the ability of them to use terrorism to diminish United States interests, to diminish the prestige and influence of the United States, to perhaps sway Middle Eastern governments that might be more likely to support United States interests. If they can inject an element of fear into that relationship, make other Middle Eastern governments perhaps sit back and question whether or not they should have a close relationship with the United States, all of these things can eventually work against our interests and to the interest of the Iranians.

ROYCE: When we look at arms trafficking and drug smuggling, some of the other things that we're investigating in the Paraguay-Brazil- Argentina region, the tri-border region, do we see in that the fingerprints of the Iranian government, or is it just Hezbollah that is building up that network, or do you find through their embassies and through other contacts evidence that Iran itself is engaged in building that terrorist network in the tri-border area?

DAUGHERTY: That was not necessarily my area of expertise, but I will comment that Hezbollah really cannot exist without Iran. It is the right arm of Iran in terms of international terrorism. And when it's inconvenient for the government of Iran to use terrorism, then its tool, Hezbollah. Hezbollah does not act independently -- at least to my knowledge it does not, and it's very much an arm of the Iranian government.

ROYCE: Hezbollah is a surrogate. Do we have direct evidence -- and maybe I should ask Dr. Alexander this -- do we have direct evidence or the fingerprints of Iranian embassy officials and so forth on Hezbollah activity, either in Latin America or in the Middle East?

ALEXANDER: Absolutely. The past 20 years I tried to follow what's happening in the region and a couple months ago I had the opportunity to be in Argentina and the tri-border area.

I would be delighted to submit some report on the ongoing research that we have to link up the Hezbollah, as well as the Iranian connection with their embassies.

There is no doubt, for example, as to their role in attacking the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in '92. And the army, as we know -- the evidence is there, and unfortunately, because of internal problems in Argentina, we cannot resolve the problem.

But there is no way that Hezbollah, that operates in dozens of countries around the world -- it's almost second to the Al Qaida, that operates probably over 80 countries around the world -- would operate especially major activities without the knowledge and the approval and the support of the Iranian government, the top echelon.

ROYCE: And the strongest piece of hard evidence on Iranian cooperation with Al Qaida, what would you offer?

ALEXANDER: Well, I think Matt Levitt referred to some of the meetings that took place in the first (inaudible), for example, that met Zawahiri, and the Sudan connection, and we know now of probably dozens, if not hundreds, of Al Qaida operatives have found safe haven in Iran.

And it is in the interest of Iran to utilize terrorism as another tool in the struggle for power. In other words, terrorism is the great equalizer. They don't have to face the United States eyeball to eyeball to fight us, but they can resort to terrorism whenever they think it would be useful. It's the cost-benefit relationship.

And therefore, for example, I mentioned Fidel Castro, Madam Chair mentioned correctly that when Fidel Castro visited the Middle East, they visited Libya, and they visited also Iran. he Made the statement that he would bring us to our knees if they will cooperate with Iran.

So what better way is that the Iranians might consider working with Fidel Castro -- who is very close to the shores of the United States -- to instigate attacks in this country and around Latin America.

And by the way, just one more word, if I may, on state-sponsored terrorism.

We have to look at the historical record of the role of Cuba -- for 40 years, how they tried to operate in Latin American and in Africa, for example, in the Middle East as well.

So, again, state-sponsored terrorism is alive and well and kicking, and we have to consider the responses very seriously.

ROYCE: The same modus operandi.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

ROS-LEHTINEN: I'm so pleased to yield to our ranking member, Mr. Ackerman, my good friend.

ACKERMAN: I thank the Chair.

Madam Chair, I think this has been one of the most powerful, factual and gut-wrenching hearings that we've had that I can remember in my 22 years here. It puts a very personal face on the issue that we're talking about and raises such huge questions of why do we stand around pretending to be impotent when we really can, if we came up with a policy, do something to affect what's going on.

I'd like to direct this question to Mr. Daugherty, if I may.

It's my understanding that, after the release of the hostages from Iranian captivity, American companies were compensated for property that was seized by the Iranian government. Is that accurate?

DAUGHERTY: Under the Algiers Accord, sir, the agreement with the banks that were involved in the deal that had investments in Iran that lost those investments, the banks basically came out 100 cents on the dollar, with no losses at all.

There was a tribunal set up for American corporations to adjudicate the claims.

ACKERMAN: So we made sure, in effect, that America's corporate interests ...

DAUGHERTY: American corporations rated ...

ACKERMAN: ... were 100 percent made whole.

DAUGHERTY: ... either through the amount of money that they received in compensation, or the ability to take those losses off in terms of taxes. Yes, the American corporations, as well as the banks, have been fully compensated.

ACKERMAN: So this country stood behind its business community?

DAUGHERTY: It's hard not to come to that conclusion at times, sir.

ACKERMAN: The second part of that same question, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's also my understanding, that despite the fact that American citizens, who were the victims of terrorism, both by Iran and other countries, have sued successfully in U.S. courts for damages, but those of you who were hostages held in Iran during those horrific 444 days are prohibited from suing?

DAUGHERTY: Yes, sir, that's correct. That was put in the terms of the accord, sir.

ACKERMAN: How did this come about?

DAUGHERTY: My understanding is that it was almost a casual, "Let's throw the Iranians another incentive to take the deal."

Contrary to what the State Department now claims, there was no discussion with our families. The families did not give permission for this provision to be put in there.

It was a surprise to us when we got off the airplane to learn that the provision was in there. We were very surprised by it.

I believe that there was a certain amount of unfairness, given the nature of the corporations and the banks, to make good on their losses, but no provision for us.

I would like to point out that the Algiers Accord basically was negotiated at gunpoint. Under international law, any agreement that is negotiated under duress really has no validity. The State Department has maintained all along that there's a certain sanctity to these accords.

There's a provision, also, in the accord, sir, that says the United States will not interfere in Iranian internal affairs. But if we're to promote democracy in Iran, if we're to support organizations or nongovernmental organizations or other methods to help the Iranian people throw off their oppressors, to reverse the direction of their government and to come join the family of nations, technically, any of our efforts in that regard would put us in violation of the Algiers Accord.

ACKERMAN: It would seem to me, then, having seen, as the country did, President Bush's inaugural in which he said, and I paraphrase, to the captive peoples of the world, that if you stand up for freedom, we will stand with you, that that is a violation of the Algiers Accord.

DAUGHERTY: Technically, it would be.

ACKERMAN: And I don't understand -- and I'll just apologize for our government -- I'm probably not the right person to do it, but somebody should -- to apologize for the treatment that hostages and families and victims suffer while the government of our great country protects the corporate interests and not the personal interests of its citizens, and would even have such an agreement.

It seems to me that if you negotiate an agreement with a gun to your head, that that's not anything that can be upheld in any court of law, because you don't have two willing parties to this agreement.

DAUGHERTY: Well, sir, you could understand our great surprise and dismay when the State Department and the Justice Department appeared in court against us to argue the case that Iran would have argued, had they chosen to defend that case.

ACKERMAN: Well, I'm sorry we were on their side.

It seems to me, listening to the full testimony of the panel, that Iran really needs us more than anything else. And as the party that continues to play the needed party, that we become the enablers of their terror and terrorism.

And I think we have to give that an awful lot of thought as we proceed with our policy deliberations.

It was earlier today that we heard a suggestion that the international community should set up a tribunal similar to the one that was established for Sierra Leone, in order to build a case against Iran for its support of terrorism.

What do you think about this approach, and should the U.S. pursue it?

Mr. Levitt?

LEVITT: I think any action is positive action, and inaction just tells state sponsors of terrorism and the groups that they sponsor that they can continue with their activities, as you've heard from just about everybody in this panel.

From Hezbollah to Al Qaida, we've heard time and again, and the 9/11 Commission made very clear, that terrorists see when we do not respond and take that weakness into consideration when they plan future attacks.

I don't know that a tribunal is going to be effective. That's not my litmus test. My litmus test is whether or not we're trying to find creative options for dealing with a very difficult problem and doing everything we can, even if any given option is only going to move us a little forward, a few inches forward.

Militarily, I don't think that is a particularly wise option with Iran, given that it is, ironically, the greatest sponsor of terrorism on the one hand and, on the other hand, has a population that is perhaps the most pro-Western in the greater Muslim world.

And the one things, as I think Professor Daugherty said, that would unite them is if there were to be some type of overt foreign intervention.

I think that a tremendous amount of covert activity is called for.

I think that, diplomatically, there's much, much more that can be done, both targeting Iran and targeting our allies who are insufficiently activated on the issue of Iran and its state sponsors. And again, I point to the Europeans, in particular, and their failure to list Hezbollah on their terrorist organizations list, even though members of Hezbollah are on that list -- as if the members recruited, trained and funded, are somehow disconnected from the group.

There's clearly much more that we can do.

ACKERMAN: Just following up on that notion, there are some that have suggested today that we perhaps run a blockade, an economic blockade, on Iran. The success of that, if it's a wise move at all, would probably require the cooperation of countries that you've already mentioned and others in Europe that we can think of.

And just thinking of that, I think most people come to the conclusion that that cooperation is something that we're not going to get. Is this because of commercial interests and both corporate and national greed on behalf of some of the countries in Europe that may be doing a lot of business?

LEVITT: I think the oil-for-food scandal demonstrates how powerful an incentive money can be, and I think that that certainly is a factor.

I think it's also a factor that different states, including some of our closest allies, have interests of their own and prioritize them differently and interpret threats differently.

Even within this country, there are those who believe that terrorist groups should be divided up into those who are very directly threatening and targeting us today, whether or not they have in the past, and those that some would say are not.

I've had arguments with people in the administration here, academics, all kinds of people in our country who say that we should deal with Hamas and Hezbollah differently than we do with other terrorist groups.

And I think that that's ridiculous, not only because there are links between all these different groups, not only because these groups should be held accountable for their horrible past actions, as we heard about today, but because, if we had dealt with Al Qaida by that litmus test, for many years we would have done even less than we did prior to 9/11, and the devastating effects could have been even worse.

We need to deal with people and states and organizations who engage in terrorism, not because of who they're attacking, as Professor Alexander said, not because of the political reason upon which they justify their actions, however legitimate their political goals may be, but simply the use of terrorism is a delegitimizer. The use of terrorism is beyond the pale.

DARBYSHIRE: May I add something?

ACKERMAN: Sure.

DARBYSHIRE: I think that whatever it is that we do, we need to send the message that they can't get away with it. And right now, we're not doing anything that sends that message.

They're using terrorism as a tool because it works for them. It gives them power, and we have to take that away.

My understanding of the situation is not complete. I'm not an expert like these other people.

DAUGHERTY: Yes, you are.

DARBYSHIRE: But it looks to me like their Achilles heel is financial.

DAUGHERTY: Sir, can I make one observation? Let me just bring home what state-sponsored terrorism has done in this very building.

When I came to Washington in 1979, you could walk the Capitol grounds 24 hours a day. There were the Capitol police inside. There were no guards. There were no fences. There was no electronic security.

At 3 o'clock in the morning, you could come and look at this building. You could walk into the rotunda at 3 o'clock in the morning. Look at this building, which is the symbol of democracy in the world.

And at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had the ability to destroy us many times over, 24 hours a day you could come into this building and freely look at what democracy means.

And now state-sponsored terrorism has caused the barricades to go up, has caused -- here's this new Visitor's Center, all the extra security. The Soviet Union, with the power to destroy us, never did to this building what state-sponsored terrorism has done.

ACKERMAN: Major Kirtley?

KIRTLEY: Sir, you mentioned the effects of an international tribunal, and I'll make a couple of points and then try and tie it all together.

Mr. Royce asked a question about what are the national interests in Iran developing nuclear capabilities, what are the national interests of Iran in being a state sponsor of terrorism.

And I think this is one of the shortcomings, maybe, of certainly the State Department and probably of some Americans overall.

The people that are running Iran certainly, I would say, have a different thought process, and think of national interest in a much different light than we think of it, than the State Department and our elected leaders think of it.

I'll make that point, and I'm sure Dr. Alexander and Dr. Levitt will agree.

When we go to this international tribunal and we talk -- I would agree that any step forward is progress. But I also would say that talk without accountability is useless.

Tell me what, over the past 25 years, American or any of the world leaders have done to make Iran believe that it's not in their best interest to develop a nuclear weapon.

ACKERMAN: Well, I guess the short answer might be "Iraq."

However, having done, or having been doing Iraq, I think it becomes harder to sell either the U.N. or the international community, or any component thereof, that we're dealing with a Middle Eastern country with connections to international terrorists and Al Qaida, that has weapons of mass destruction that they're developing, and have bad intentions all around. It seems to be we speak from a position of weakness brought on by our loss of a lot of credibility in that situation.

And that hurts us. That hurts us tremendously, as far as our prestige and our ability to really do some good in the world.

Just a comment on Dr. Daugherty's observation. I remember the Social Studies teacher who came to Washington, and I brought my kids down here -- my own kids -- and marveled in the fact that I could drive my car right up to the front steps of the Capitol of the United States and walk inside at 10 o'clock at night without anybody asking me who I was, because I wanted to see the capital of the free world and show it to my children.

Terrorists can't win a war, but it's also possible to be nibbled to death by ants. And the faster we have a policy to deal with this, the better off everybody is going to be.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Ackerman.

And to close this hearing, I'd like to ask two other witnesses just to come forward and make some closing remarks on our behalf, and that's Rocky Sickmann and Dick Morefield, who were also hostages, and I would like to recognize them and address our subcommittee and close the hearing for us.

MOREFIELD: Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity.

You've seen me in the back row there, nodding and a bobbing like the choir.

I would like to give you two insights from my experiences, one that goes back to Uruguay, back to the 1960s.

I saw a beautiful little democracy destroyed by the first urban terrorism, the Tupamaros. It took Uruguay two generations to recover from their inability to cope with terrorism at that time.

And I came to the conclusion at that time that terrorism is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. It makes it possible for a small group that cannot win its aims either by military or political means to force its agenda on either a segment of a country or an entire country.

I've seen this also in Columbia, and I think I'm seeing this also in Iran. The reason why Iran uses state terrorism is because it's cheap and it works.

The only way we can combat it is, basically, to stand up to it so that it doesn't work and make it more expensive.

Now, let me give you one other insight from when I was along the Caspian border right after the failed rescue attempt. It was one of the few times I was able to talk to the guards. And I was arguing -- or trying to fight -- why was Russia the Little Satan and we were the Great Satan?

I said, "Russia's on your border. They've invaded you once before. They can -- why?" And they never could give me an answer until I asked them, I said, "You don't understand the United States. I wish you could come to the United States so you could understand it." And he said, "Oh, no, I don't want to go to the United States. I must be corrupted." And that gave me the key.

The reason why we're the Great Satan is because we are a multi- cultural, democratic, open society, and that's what the people in power in Iran fear, and that's what, somehow, the Iranian people are going to have to overcome.

And with those two insights, I'll turn it over to Rocky.

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you.

ACKERMAN: Madam Chair?

ROS-LEHTINEN: Yes, Mr. Ackerman?

ACKERMAN: Just for the record, let it be recorded that the minority concurs happily with the late noticed additional witnesses, and we're happy that they're here.

ROS-LEHTINEN: I saw his head bopping, and I just felt like he wanted to talk.

(LAUGHTER)

Thank you.

Rocky?

SICKMANN: Madam Chairman, I'm not prepared to really expound on the situation, although I can only think back to seeing that picture that day, on that November 4th, where I, along with other fellow Marines, had shotguns pointed to rows of Iranian women as they had broke through the basement window. And they brought the women in first, knowing that the Marines probably would not have shot upon them unarmed.

And of course, at that time, we were told not to fire our weapons. Tear gas was thrown, and they removed themselves.

And I think back, and especially after 9/11, I've told friends that I wonder what would have happened had I'd fired that November 4th of 1979 -- that young Marine, along with the others, accidentally pulled the trigger and started a bloodbath. Would we be here now had we taken the accountability to make Iran be responsible for their actions?

That haunts me. I mean, over and over and over.

As Ms. Darbyshire had mentioned, she has a friend, an Iranian friend. My son's best friend is an Iranian. And I teach -- I have three wonderful children, a wonderful wife of 25 years next year, but I teach my children, when they're born, to love, not to hate.

When I was held for 444 days, outside my window I would hear the young children of Iran -- that was 1979 -- "Death to America." And it's 2005, and it's still, "Death to America." So it continues to haunt me.

When do we take action? When do we show Iran, for what they did on that day should never happen, not only Iran but the rest of the world?

So that's why I'm here, because it's our future. And something needs to be set, a policy and a procedure.

ROS-LEHTINEN: We didn't hear then, and I hope that we're listening now.

Thank you to each and every one of you for your powerful testimony, and thank you to the members for being here.

The subcommittee is adjourned.

---

Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control - Iraq Watch

About Us | Contact Us | Subscribe

Copyright © 2003- 2012
Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control
1701 K Street NW, Suite 805
Washington, DC 20006 USA
Tel: 202-223-8299, Fax: 202-223-8298