SEN. LEVIN: Good morning, everybody.

Today the committee meets to receive testimony on the situation in Georgia. Our witnesses are Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried, Lieutenant General John Paxton Jr., Director of Operations, J-3, Joint Staff, and Brigadier General Michael Flynn, Director for Intelligence, J-2, Joint Staff.

. . .

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you.

What we'll do is have an eight-minute round of questions for the first round. And when I call upon Senator Warner, he'll have some additional time for any opening statement that he might wish to add.

. . .

SEN. LEVIN: Now, what about working with Russia in terms of pressuring Iran to stop their enrichment program? Are we thinking about not working to persuade Russia -- not working with Russia in that area? That's a critical area in terms of the world's security to keep Iran from getting their enrichment program.

Are we seriously thinking about no longer trying to work with Russia to stop Iran from enriching uranium?

MR. FRIED: We would like to be able to continue to work with Russia.

SEN. LEVIN: But are we saying to Russia, we may not continue to work with you?

MR. FRIED: We have not sent that signal.

SEN. LEVIN: Is that on the table?

MR. FRIED: There are areas where we have common interest with Russia. We had these common interests before August 8th and we have them now.

SEN. LEVIN: And those, therefore, are not on the table to be changed. Is that fair?

Look, I think these are important complicated issues, but I think it is important that we not send a signal, for instance, that we're no longer interested in working with her to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

MR. FRIED: Quite right. And as I said, it remains in our interest to work with them. But we also want to work -- we want to look at the totality of the relationship and draw conclusions.

But the point is -- you're point, sir, is an accurate one. Working with Russia on Iran remains in our national interest.

SEN. LEVIN: Hopefully then, it's not on the table.

MR. FRIED: As I said, it remains in our national -- it certainly remains in our national interest.

SEN. LEVIN: To?

MR. FRIED: To continue to work with them.

. . .

SEN. THUNE: Secretary Fried, there are recent press reports that indicate that Russia is planning to use its position in negotiations with Iran as a bargaining chip against the United States. How would you assess Russia's cooperation on the subject of Iran in the past and have they been much of a help? You know, doesn't a nuclear-armed Iran pose a threat to Russia as well? And just comment generally if you would on some of those questions.

MR. FRIED: Russia has been a constructive partner in the P5+1 process with respect to Iran's nuclear program. We have worked closely with Russia. The so-called incentives offer that we've made -- that the P5+1 has made to Iran came about through, among other things, work with the Russians. It certainly seems to be in Russia's interests to work with us because a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to them. I have also heard what you have, sir -- that the Russians intend somehow or talked loosely about using -- trying to use their cooperation on Iran as leverage. I don't see how they would and in any event we are going to try to work with the Russians in areas where we have common interest but I cannot imagine circumstances in which we would bargain away the rights of sovereign countries for the privilege of working with the Russians in areas of common interest.

SEN. THUNE: There's a report that Russia is going to soon deliver or may have begun delivering new and much more sophisticated anti-aircraft systems to Iran, and in fact there was an ABC news report on July 9th stating that Iran is expected to take delivery of the SA-20 missile shield system from Russia by the end of the year, which I think is contrary to remarks made today by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. That's actually a quote from July 9th.

But I guess -- and maybe this is a question for the -- our military members of the panel from General Flynn today too -- but is the assessment of Russia's delivery of these systems to Iran something that we ought to be concerned about? How long will it be until these systems are up and running, and if delivered, what does the capability of the systems mean to the military balance of power in the region?

GEN. PAXTON: Senator Thune, with your permission let me just give a preliminary answer and then I think General Flynn will be happy to talk about some of the details. Unfortunately, Russia has provided a lot of conventional military support to Iran. In general, I don't think that has been as helpful as their -- some of their diplomatic efforts have been. The missiles you point to and the reports you point to in particular are something we watch very carefully because there is a very serious capability that would be a concern to us as well as others in the region, and we do watch it very closely. To the best of my knowledge I don't believe we think that the missiles that were referred to in the ABC report are in fact slated for delivery by the end of this year but it is something that we are watching very closely.

SEN. THUNE: General?

GEN. FLYNN: Yeah. And I would just add that I would agree that the timeline, we don't see it by the end of this year. The significance of that type of weapon system put into Iran would change the -- certainly some of their capabilities and something that we would be clearly concerned about. In the -- I would just that the -- in order for Iran to acquire that kind of a weapon system they have to go through a whole series of training and understanding how to apply it, et cetera, et cetera. So I mean, there's a number of issues that we would be monitoring and working very closely with our allies to ensure that we understood the timeline if in fact they decide to deliver that weapon system into Iran.

. . .