we had a conversation into the ,ight talking about annapolis his father, grandparents, family, his own service, and his time as a parameter to -- prisoner. we pledged to each other right that the country was still too divided over the war. that we felt we needed to find a way to not just make peace with vietnam but make peace at home. >> watch this weekend on book tv. the state department special envoy to the iran set down for an interview with the hudson institute on missile proliferation. the discussion focused on the iran nuclear deal, ally cooperation, and how the u.s. can exact pressure on iran to curb its missile program. i'm delighted to welcome mr.

hook to the hudson institute. to thank my colleague for putting together such an important and timely event. i want to think mr. hook for sharing his time in next jesus morning. it has been ardently the most this table is a force in the middle east and south asia. we welcome to hudson institute mr. brian hook, senior policy advisor, secretary of state, mike pompeo, and recently named special representative for iran.

mr. hook will lead the iran action group to coordinate the state department's pressure campaign. previously, he founded the international strategic consulting firm in washington dc , held senior positions in the george w. bush administration, assistant secretary of state for international organizations, senior advisor to the united nations special assistant to the , president for policy, and counsel in the office for legal policy. before that, he practiced corporate law. please join me in thanking him for his service and welcome him and rebecca, i colleague here at hudson who has written widely security threats, especially proliferation and missile defense. i want to thank her and him for the time they are spending. thank you both. >> thank you for joining us this morning. i would like to thank my friend for being here and to share with

us his perspective on the issue. what we will do this morning's brian will deliver his remarks, and then he will have a seat and he and i will engage in a discussion and then take questions from the audience. but for those of you with questions, if you could please raise your hand, write them down on a piece of paper. that will be passed around by my colleagues. and then when i signal to him, he will collect them and i will ask a couple of questions from that stack. and we will everybody out of here right on time. with that, the floor is yours. >> thanks. i would like to thank the hudson institute for hosting me today, especially to thank rebeccah. with that, the floor is yours. >> thanks. for extending this invitation. as many of you know, rebecca is a thought leader on nonproliferation and security issues. i have had an opportunity to

work with her and the hudson institute over many years, so it is a real honor for me to be invited to give a speech on iran's missile program. when the president first and directed his administration to address the iran deals serious in he identified three key october 2017, deficiencies. the sunset clause, the inspections regime, and "near total silence on iran's missile program." this last issue is what i want to discuss with you. iran has the largest ballistic missile force in the middle east, with more than 10 systems in its inventory or in development. its ballistic missile program remains amongst the most significant challenges to broader nonproliferation efforts in the region and is an enduring threat to our allies and partners, including israel. as secretary of octave said in

his speech announcing our new iran strategy, iran must and its -- end its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt further launching and development of nuclear capable missile systems. history tells us clearly that iy october advancements in ballistic missile systems often go hand in hand with the development of nuclear weapons. since ballistic missiles are the most likely way that iran would deliver a nuclear warhead, this administration has been firm on its position that the nuclear issue has to be addressed to -- together with iran's missile proliferation. but, the jcpoa, also known as the nuclear deal, separated these issues. it removed missile development from the equation and focus on restraining one facet of

proliferation at the expense of another. this was amongst the deals key shortcomings. and one of the reason the president decided to end our participation in it. the deal failed to protect the american people, in part, because it failed to address iran's dangerous brand of -- spread of missiles across the middle east. however, this was not always the case. prior to the iran deal, the international community agreed that the best way to constrain iran's nuclear threat was to also address its long-range ballistic missile capabilities. this is why the un security council took action in 2010, to target development of iran's ballistic missiles. resolution 1929

prohibits iran, under chapter seven, from undertaking any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering 9 prohibits iran, under chapter nuclear weapons, including launches, using ballistic missile technology. even with this prohibition, i ran proceeded to conduct multiple launches from 2010 until 2016, in clear violation of international law. but the message sent by the international community was nonetheless clear. iran cannot be allowed to advance its nuclear program at the same time that it is developing ballistic missile capabilities. the iran deal undermined this international consensus. the deal it self failed to include any language constraining iran's listed -- ballistic missile program. it gave the regime sanctions relief while allowing it to continue to develop and refine its arsenal. worse yet the international , community backpedaled on the

consensus that the missiles should go hand in hand. the un security council resolution 2231, which formally endorsed the iran deal and superseded resolution 1929, contained diluted language that came as welcome news to iraq. they lobbied hard for it. as the resolution now states, iran is simply called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. let me translate this. the international community kindly calls upon the islamic republic, the world's leading state for sponsor of terror, to please refrain from bad behavior. but if kind words and good faith regime,ith the iranian

we would have settled this issue long ago. the new language is hardly a re, we would have settled this issue long ago. the new language is hardly a clear and enforceable prohibition. and the iranians have exploited this ambiguity ever since. take, for example, in july, when iran tested a space launch vehicle. the u.s., france, and germany and the u.k. all assessed the launch violated the resolution-- because space launch vehicles used similar technology as intercontinental ballistic missiles. when we took our concerns to the u.n., the russians were more than happy to point out that the resolution contained only a call, which by all means was not a prohibition to refrain from activities related to ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. the reality that u.n. member states ignore at their peril is that iran has continued to develop and test ballistic missiles. in fact, and let me be clear about this, the iranian pace of

missiles did not diminish after the iran deal is implemented in january of 2016. iran has conducted multiple ballistic missile launches since that time. we assessed in january, 2017, iran launched a medium-range missile, this missile is designed to carry a payload greater than 500 kilograms and could be used to carry nuclear warheads. its suspected range also approaches 2000 kilometers, far enough to target some european capitals. the islamic republic maintains the largest underground facility program in the middle east. it is underground to protect and conceal many aspects of its missile program. in 2016, iran unveiled two new short-range ballistic missiles, which it claims are capable of striking targets between 500 and 700 kilometers.

tehran also claim they are pursuing long-range, precision guided missiles, which will present an increased threat to our allies in the region. iran is also in the business of supplying missiles to its proxies in the middle east. as i am sure you have seen, recent media has suggested iran is transferring ballistic missiles to shia militias in iraq. these claims are all the more serious when you take into account the life-threatening and provocative attacks on u.s. facilities, recently in baghdad and basra, which iran did nothing to stop. at the president has said, the united states will hold the regime in tehran accountable for any attack that results in injury to our personnel or damage united states government facilities. america will respond swiftly and decisively in defense of american lives.

in lebanon, we have evidence iran is helping has bob missile production facilities. there is also mounting evidence they are providing technology to the who tease in yemen. analysis of debris recovered from a november 2017 strike close the international airport indicate that the missile was of iranian origin. a company logo matches that of indicates --ompany industries is written on the missile. as you when an ambassador nikki haley said in response, imagine if this missile had been launched at dulles airport or jfk or the airports in paris, london, or berlin. this is the kind of activity that iran is supporting. and is continuing to support every day. so what are the united states and its allies doing?

for starters, we ended the practice of simply admiring the problem. secretary pompeo launched a multipronged pressure campaign that reflects the presidents a goal of protecting the american people and our allies. first, we are using the full scope of our sanctions authorities to inflict real costs on your ron paul's ballistic missiles program. in march of 2017 and april 2018, the u.s. imposed sanctions against a total of 19 foreign entities for transferring equipment to iran's missile program. in july 2017, we designated 18 entities and individuals under executive orders for otherwise supporting iran's ballistic missile program or otherwise facilitating the regimes military procurement. we designated four additional entities in connection with the missile program under the same executive order.

in may of 2018, we designated five iranian individuals for providing ballistic missile expertise. the individuals were also responsible for transferring weapons to yemen on behalf of the cuts force. while we are sanctioning iran's missile activity our economic pressure is much broader. the u.s. is re-imposing sanctions that were lifted or waived as part of the nuclear deal. the first of these went into effect on august 7 and the wil remainder will be in novembr 5. we are attempting to get iranian oil imports is close to zero as possible by to deny the regime november 4 revenue to fund its foreign adventures. as part of our campaign to stop the iranian regime funding of terrorism we also jointly foreign adventures. , disrupted with the uae a stop

currency exchange network that was transferring millions of dollars. regime leaders should feel the painful consequences for their violence. bad decision-making and corruption. our aggressive reimposition of sanctions is aimed at forcing ,ran to choose whether it should cease its destabilizing face growing economic pressure and diplomatic isolation. second, we are working on -- multilaterally to constrain iran's missile program and to bring allies and partners on board. we are coordinating with allies to interdict missile related transfers and target iranian missile proliferation activities in third countries. we understand the need to strengthen deterrence in the region to dissuade iran from spreading its threat. we also participate in the missile technology control regime and the hague code of

conduct against melissa will ballistic programs to target iran's missile development programs. we also have taken steps to impede their acquisition. many other nations already have common understandings of the threat that iran poses beyond its nuclear aspirations. i think this is clear in our negotiations with allies before the president decided to leave the iranian nuclear deal. we want more nations to join us in confronting the array of iran 's maligned activity. we are asking every nation that can no longer tolerate iran's destructive behaviors to protect its people by joining us. finally, while not directly related to the missile issue, another critical component is secretary pompeo's commitment to exposing the regime's brutality in standing with the iranian people.

the iranian people deserve to know the high level of self we continue to say that the longest suffering victims of the iranian regime of the iranian people. we will continue to expose the regime's corrupt monopolies, malign activities, crooked self dealings and outright oppression. in his triptary did he will continue to engage with the iranian diaspora. the goal is a conference of call the iran that addresses destabilizing behavior. we ask the islamic republic to behave like a normal country so it can enjoy the privileges of a normal country. with regard to ms. soles, this -- withturning to the regard to ms. soles, the development of -- with regard to

on the programs for allowing the regime to develop an political rate ballistic missiles is a failed policy that the world cannot continue. it is time for nations to join us holding i ran to a new level of accountability for its destructive behavior. thank you. [applause] >> the world community wants to keep iran nuclear deal. our allies. the germans. the deal.to keep the world community wants to keep the deal. let's talk about normal countries. what's talk saudi arabia. is that who our allies are?

let's talk. , do you think sanctions are hurting the regime or the iranian people? they are hurting the iranian people. you are making a case for war with iran. how is that going to turn out? you are doing the same thing we did with iraq. we don't want another war in the middle east. iraq turn out? we have serious suffering. how dare you bring up yemen. saudi bombing is killing people in yemen. let's get real. no more war. >> thank you for those remarks.

>> thank you for your patience. thank you for those remarks. i think one of the things you said, possibly the most interesting, one of the most interesting things you said was the iran deal was supposed to have a moderating effect. the missile activity in particular was something that did not seem to be phased. that was one of the criticisms from those who were concerned about the iran deal. program went hand in glove. if the iranians abided, they could continue their iran deal.

i don't know if you had anything else you wanted to comment on. it was interesting that we did not see a change in that behavior under the jcpoa. the pace of missile launches did not diminish after implementation of the jcpoa. they have conducted multiple ballistic missile launches. , it you look at the deal says clearly the deal did is designed to contribute to regional paces, but international peace and stability. the middle east is more stable. since the time the iran nuclear deal was implemented. its has been engaging in unique brand of sectarianism and violence, exporting revolution

around the middle east through lebanon. and, in some strange way iran's compliance with the iran nuclear deal, a low bar, compliance became a seal of approval iran was fine. when you look at the threat missilesspecially in it has done nothing to diminish the missile launches. >> talk about ally cooperation. in particular the air ally cooperation. what they see and do. you mentioned the saudi's. the effects of the liberation.

>> when you look at the number of missiles that have been launched from yemen inside of saudi arabia this is when one lands right there in the riyadh airport. a threat to international peace and security. imagine if one of the missiles had been at charles de gaulle or heathrow. this is dangerous. there he dangerous work. missiles,eration of they are trying to weaponize the middle east. they were able to develop forward deployed missile base in lebanon. they have the same aspirations in syria and yemen. the gray zone. plausible deniability for the missile attacks.

we don't make a distinction between the iranian government and these militias. the president spoke on that quickly after the attacks. work withct to our our allies, i'm in regular touch with partners and a couple of days ago with the moroccan foreign minister. whotries around the world are increasingly worried about missile proliferation. i think nations are increasingly scopeortable limiting the of the discussion on iran to just the iran nuclear deal. it is important that nations of the dangersre this proliferation presents to their own people.

iran is not constraining its missile development and its testing. stableant to have a middle east it starts with constraining iran. mentioned talking about that particular that landed in saudi, we have been collecting some of the missile debris parts. showcase what we have been collecting. one of the things was that they are not hiding that these are rainy in origin. what do you make of that? what do we think of the brazenness of what the iranians are doing? >> there was a prohibition under chapter seven on the ballistic

missile program that was largely lifted under the security council resolution that memorialize the nuclear deal. room.ave a lot of running as a consequence of that. i was there yesterday. , we have new ms. and other weapons that have been brought to the united states from the battlefield. you can see the missiles clearly. one that was recovered and yemen, you can see on the missile parts. right by the airport, it is stamped with industries. the logo is right there. it is impossible to miss. i think they feel like they can

do this with impunity. that is something the international community ignores at its peril. >> if you have questions you want to pass to the audience we will collect those. in a few minutes. look at that. you are on top of things. just, another question on , one ofat do you see the things people who were in favor of the jcpoa, they bring up the missile program -- we are trying to singularly focused on the nuclear peace. if we bring in other things the deal will sink. the iranians didn't want, they refused to include missiles. that if it indicator is that important to the iranians and missiles are delivery systems, then that was

a signal they did not make a strategic decision to move away. and, to the extent that you can talk about that, can also be used. do you have any -- is there a aboution, chemicals and the nature of the regime because they were unwilling to include icbms in the deal, their intent on their nuclear program and the direction they want to go. >> it was a mistake not to include them. when i was engaged in negotiations with the e3 to do this, icbms was something we needed addressed. nukes and icbms go hand-in-hand. they don't travel apart. have iran,ficient to

a deal with iran on its nuclear program that doesn't include icbms. more than that by not including the latitude iran it desired to keep developing and proliferating its missile program. when you look at it in terms of the terrorism it supports, the maritime aggression, they threatened to close the straight. far from constraining iran's regional activities we have seen an acceleration under the life of the iran nuclear deal. that is why our strategy and secretary pompeo's requirements are meant to address the totality of threats iran presents. the new deal that we hope to be

able to sign, it will not be a personal agreement between two governments like the last one. we seek a treaty. that is important. in terms of the iran nuclear agreement made with the president at the time. they did not have the votes of the u.s. senate. insufficient in our system of government. if you want to have something enduring a sustainable. we have called for a treaty which the iran nuclear deal should've been a treaty. it is something that rises to that element of nonproliferation, it deserved consideration by the senate. we are going to keep working with our allies. secretary pompeo talked about this in his speech. we are expanding our diplomacy. threat is nothis

limited to those countries that were members of the deal. it is broader than that. iran presents international threats to peace and security. has anrnational problem international solution. to thatve a question end. if india and china in particular , one to help u.s. pressure ballistic missiles, what about india and china's purchases of iranian oil by india and china? you can broaden that and talk about in general our allies and partners in their continued business with iran that does continue to enable or prop up the regime. what is the notice is willing to do to get that to stop? hite have set our goal is to have imports of iranian oil

to zero. 80% of their tax revenues are based on oil. the regime economy is deliberately opaque. it is designed to never know whether you are facilitating commerce or terrorism. we are trying to get after the money. 100 major firms around the world announce their intention to leave the iranian seeingbefore we were that when we decided to leave the deal. our sanctions regime, whether that concerns oil or energy, banking, the whole range of revenues that flow from the central bank of iran but we are trying to get after that revenue to deny the money it needs to fund its nuclear program, its missile program, it's terrorism, its repression of its citizens.

that is the purpose of our sanctions regime. it is not to punish companies. it is designed to achieve national security object lives so we can contribute to a more peaceful middle east. say hear a lot of people sanctions are not working. you have to understand the purpose of the sanctions. we are trying to get back to the international consensus, pre-jcpoa, choking out the iranian economy to dry up the funds. atwhen we started, i worked the u.s. mission to the u.n. and was one of the negotiators of the iran sanction revs solutions. . many of these resolutions were the sanctions architectures that were lifted.

ultimately they came to the negotiating table. our strongest sanctions don't go into effect until early november. iran tends tot come to the negotiating table the sanctions relief, it was squandered in their foreign adventurism. one of the questions i ask is why would iran spend more money, less money on terrorism if it is giving more money to spend on terrorism? was undernuclear deal the flawed premise. unfortunately we have seen the opposite. >> i do think it is interesting.

remarkable rather since the united states has been imposing the sanctions. the effect that it is having on the deal. it refused the argument we can't get back to. that would best deal be the case. many allies would rather do business with united states. those hard choices are being made. we're making a lot of progress. like some of said these requirements are unrealistic. i don't know how it is more realistic to accept the status quo. consensusthe global prior to the jcpoa. >> this is pretty specific. extent of iran's missile presence in syria? the iranian government has poured billions of dollars to

prop up the assad regime. iranou talk about what thinks of providing missiles and weaponry to the syrian government? >> one thing to bear in mind is 2012 iran has provided $16 billion to its partners in syria, iraq, lebanon, yemen. billione extended $4.6 in lines of credit to a sod. what't know how this help, is going on in syria. concerned.easingly alletary pompeo has said forces under iranian command need to get out of syria. that is our requirement is part of the political track we are pursuing with the un's special

representative. we do have this agreement that gives us some space to make some progress. i work closely with jim jeffrey, the secretary special representative for syrian engagement. strategy, part of the 12 requirements include syria. making have jim and joel the iran, ending iran's presence. units that are under iranian control that need to get out of syria. this is a diplomatic priority. it is his a priority for my work to impose pressure on iran that the cost-benefit analysis changes in terms of its polar if ration and that extends to iraq.

we are trying to change the cost-benefit analysis for their behavior. any -- is there any scope for partnering with iran on a limited scope on a stabilization and reconstruction? you mentioned iraq in particular. --there any prospect or any have you seen that calculus begin to change? is iran modern he its behavior or showing that perhaps it is not worth what is doing and could be part of the solution? >> after you saw the press reports about the missiles into onq, you then had attacks our embassy a couple of weeks ago thursday and friday, then the attacks on saturday.

you have the missile launches from inside iran. have the president, he has signaled that we are taking this, some as school tory behavior very seriously. america will take swift action to protect our properties and our people in iraq. it is important the iranians understand our resolve. -- you work closely makeour allies trying to progress per what about congress? what is the extent to have interaction in persuading congress? do you see in this highly politicized environment, during the j c.o.p. negotiations you had senators like senator

schumer who laid out i thought the best case for not agreeing to the jcpoa when he wrote a press release. do you see opportunities for consensus to cooperate and help implement this. >> i work closely with senate foreign relations committee. with chairman royce and chairman corker. ranking members. i have made a point during my time to work closely with both houses of congress. you had a lot of opposition to the iran deal when it was being negotiated. there was a time when the president said he was willing to stay in the deal if we can address these deficiencies. there was support the congress for doing that. we were not able to reach an agreement to address that.

we got close but not able to end the sunset provisions. iran has not earned the trust of the international community to have restrictions lifted. in addition to icbm it was critical weekend the sunsets and the one year breakout standard exists in perpetuity. that left the deal. , we are we are out focused on achieving our objectives. across the range of threats iraq presents. congresscussions with there is a deal of support. this is not an issue of many factions. it is something everybody recognizes the problem. congress has been a good partner in this way. that is encouraging. i thought of something, as our little friend was talking in the

beginning, she was talking about how this is one to hurt the iranian people. part of theontrary charm administration approached no, theiran, to say iranian government has been the number one threat to the iranian people. can you talk a little bit about the separation between the regime and the iranian people? wea couple of things, when have the great revolution, the prior administration failed to stand with the iranian people. we corrected that. in december and january, from the president down, across the executive branch, strong robust support for the iranian people, validating the demands they are making on their government. when you look at the demands they are making it is the same demands we are making.

so, the president will be giving his speech at the u.n. general assembly next week. i am sure iran, last time he talked to the iranian people in those remarks, we are going to continue that. it is important the iranian people know that we stand with them in terms of demands they are making on the government. our sanctions regime has exemptions, clear exemptions for providing military and relief and medicine and food. that is going to continue. at sanctions are directed the iranian regime so they change their behavior. it is as simple as that. when you the iranian regime to change its behavior. if they're willing to do that, there is a very bright future in

store but we need to see that behavior change first. >> it is worth noting that after the jcpoa was implemented and there was sanctions relief, the iranian government did not spend andn their own economy helping their own people. terrorism continued and the iranian people saw that. the kinds of protests we are seeing now are different in the green revolution. you are seeing it across all different socioeconomic statuses in iran. it seemed different that it is against the regime itself including those there. it is remarkable thing that is happening. >> it is. question has been asked multiple times. what is the possibility for high-ranking meetings between

the united states government and the iranians? >> i met with the iranian deputy foreign minister on the margins of the joint commission meeting anna -- i in the presented him with a list of americans who are being unjustly detained inside of iran. i said these people have suffered long enough and the need to be let go. that was the nature of my conversation at the time. the president and secretary have made clear that we are ready to negotiate. to have those discussions. i think the ayatollah and the president and foreign minister have indicated they are not interested in talking. we respect that. that does not change our plans. we have a sanctions regime that is underway. stronger measures are yet to come. any aversion been

to meeting with the iranians. meeting, during attended by the united states. clear. made it very we can't be more clear about the things that we would like to see changed and in return these are the things we are willing to offer. that is where it is. >> thank you for the work that you do. thank you for your remarks here. join me in thanking brian.

>> a programming reminder. live coverage of the hearing for brett kavanaugh, now scheduled for monday at 10:00 eastern on c-span. is reportingtimes that the woman accusing judge brett kavanaugh of sexual assault has told the senate judiciary in a bid to jumpstart negotiations she would be prepared to testify next week so long as senators offer terms that are fair which ensure her safety according to email her attorney sent to committee staff members. sayse email the lawyer testifying monday is not

possible and the committee's insistence it occur then is arbitrary. the lawyer reiterated it is her strong preference a full investigation occur before her testimony. she suggested she is open to testifying without one. that is from the new york times. we are planning live coverage on c-span. it is set to begin monday and will be available online at c-span.org and you can listen with the three c-span radio app. live now to the center for strategic and international studies for a discussion on the 2019 budget for the pentagon. defense budget analysis todd harrison giving an in-depth review of the requests for national defense funding. live coverage here on c-span.

>> welcome everyone. harrison. the senior fellow at the defense budget analysis at csi as. my co-author is a research assistant here working on the defense budget issues. today we are going to talk about what has been going on in the