possible can. any strike would drive the iranian people towards the current radical regime. a strike would be likely to cause iran to withdraw from the treaty and the iaea that would then have no access. and finally any strike is likely to cause huge retaliation by iran and its proxies against israel and probably other western states as wecontinue as long as we can. >> i think that's right. i think if the sanctions don't work, there will come a moment of a very difficult decision. but right now the sanctions are having an effect, as you say. this is not, you know -- we shouldn't sort of revere iran as some sort of successful minisuper power. this is a disastrous country with huge rates of using the death penalty, massive unemployment, huge economic dislocation. can only get oil from one side of the country to the other

side. this is in many ways a deeply flawed economy, a deeply flawed society and sanctions will have their effect. but i also agree that it is not the right thing for israel or anyone else to launch an attack right now. we've made that position very clear. further decisions on what we'll have to do, but right now our viewed very clearly communications to the israelis. we quite understand their concerns. we quite understand their worries. but we're very firmly that sanctions and pressure has further to go. in an address to the american israel public affairs committee on monday, mitch mckom mcconnell called for using weapons. his comments about a half hour.

>> thank you very much for that very kind introduction. and all of you for having me here tonight. i'm delighted to be here to affirm the strong indeed unbreakable bond that exists between the united states and israel. [ applause ] and also to express my own personal commitment to the promotion of defense of that bond in and out of season. these are the sentiments i like forward to sharing with prime minister tomorrow as well. before i get to the subjects of my remarks, i would like to acknowledge a few [ inaudible ] in the audience. one of the best friends i ever had was a late great bubba

mitchell. we saw eye-to-eye on is just about everything. we shared a deep love of public service, college football and our families. so i'm glad to see that bubba's wife and his three daughters and their husbands are here carrying on the family tradition. [ applause ] made a lot of good friends over the years. i also want to just mention norm brownstein. been great friends over the years. and to recognize aipac current president and chairman lee rosenberg. and of course howard core. thank you for this service -- for your service to this vital organization which has helped me

and my staff immensely over the years. finally, i want to acknowledge all the kentucky ians who are here. we may not have a large jewish population in the bluegrass state, but i'd like to think we make up for it in heart. in fact, one aipac supporter i worked with years ago in louisville summed up the attitude most jewish kentucky yans pretty well. he said, mitch, there's only one race better than the jews and that's the kentucky derby. now, as we all know the u.s. and israel have a lot in common. in addition to the strategic interests that bind us, both were born of conflict and built by immigrants and pioneers. and both of all has been firmly

committed to the democratic ideals that enabled their people to flourish. because of these things, israel has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support here in washington. but saying we support israel doesn't necessarily ensure it. that's why i wanted to come here tonight to share not just my good wishes but to offer a concrete plan that would put our shared interest to the test. because let's face it, in the four years since i last spoke at this conference, very little if anything has changed in terms of america's stated commitments with respect to israel. and yet i think we'd all have to admit when it comes to the a nuclear armed iran, we have now reached a point where the current administration's policies, however well intentioned, simply aren't enough.

[ applause ] four years later, four years after i spoke to this group, iran's actions and several other objective facts suggest that it has made significant progress in its quest to develop the capability to build a nuclear weapon. so let's review. iran is now believed to have produced at least five years worth of medium enriched uranium for its medical reactors. according to the experts, such quantities raise serious suspicions about a military intent. in the fall of 2009, the u.s., uk and france presented detailed evidence to the international atomic energy agency that iran had for several years been busy building a covert enrichment

facility near goem. the implication of the report was clear. not only does iran have the ability to conceal enrichment from the iaea and the rest of the world, but also the intent. since i last spoke to this conference, iran has only -- also rejected an offer by the five permanent members of the u.n. security council and germany, the p-5 plus 1 to exchange its stockpile of low enriched uranium to be processed and returned in sufficient quantities for medical use. further, the iaea report of november 2011 raised serious concerns about the military dimensions of iran's nuclear program stating that "iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device." and iran recently denied the

iaea access to the parching facility where it may have conducted a test in association with nuclear materials. what's more, it refuses to explain the purposes of its activities at parchen. finally, and perhaps most ominously, iran has acknowledged and the iaea has confirmed that it's enriching uranium at the underground facility near ghom enabling it to accelerate enrichment in an apparent attempt to shield it from a military strike. taken together, taken all of these things together, they present not only a compelling case against iran, but also regretfully against the current administration's efforts to halt the regime's nuclear weapons

program. [ applause ] four years after expressing grave concerns about the iranian threat, i regret to conclude that those concerns have only become more acute. now, some people might raise a question at this point. why exactly is a nuclear armed iran so dangerous? my answer to them is this. if iran behaves the way it does without a nuclear weapon, then how would it behave with one? [ applause ] so let's leave aside for a moment the way it's treated weapons inspectors and the u.n. and just look at the rest of its record, the rest of its record. first, iran is a state sponsor

of terrorism which provides material support to hezbollah and hamas. it is a vowed ally of syria which continues to provide it with material support even now. it recently attempted to assassinate the saudi ambassador of the united states right here in the u.s. flagrantly flouting the u.s. and international law. it has provided weapons in training to shiite militias in iraq and shipped weapons from inside iran later used against u.s. military personnel in iraq. it recently threatened to close the strait of hormuz. it continues to develop ballistic missiles raising legitimate suspicions about the intended use of these missiles as vehicles for a nuclear weapon. and it provides sanctuary for financial backers of al qaeda.

now, ladies and gentlemen, these are not the actions of a state that's comfortable with its place in the world. they are the actions of a self-described revolutionary state that is determined to shift the balance of power in the middle east. a nuclear armed iran would pose a threat to israel, saudi arabia, jordan, the united arab emirates and bahrain. it would threaten sea lines of communication and commerce. and it would further be em boldened as arms plif raters as president obama conceited before you yesterday. make no mistake, make no mistake. iran has a goal in mind. one that has pushed for years through terrorism, covert actions and, i believe, through the active pursuit of a nuclear

weapons program that would only bring its broader goals within closer reach. as the great theorist of international relations hans morgan feld once put it, the principle means by which a nation endeavors with the power at its disposal to maintain or re-establish the balance of power are armaments. this is what we're witnessing in iran. and it must be stopped. [ applause ] now, in the weeks and months ahead, israel and the united states face a day of reckoning. we either do what it takes to balance the power in the broader middle east, or risk a nuclear arms race across the region that's almost certain to up end it.

now, president obama knows all this as well as i do. that's why he has said repeatedly and as recently as yesterday that he's determined to prevent a nuclear iran. and i appreciate this affirmation of our common goal. [ applause ] it is in the service of this goal that the president has also insisted since taking office that "all options are on the table." the question, however, isn't whether we have the same goal. we do have the same goal. the question is why the administration's efforts haven't succeeded in halting iran's nuclear weapons program. that's the question. [ applause ] so let me suggest an answer to the question. the reason the administration

hasn't succeeded in halting iran's nuclear program is that its policy contains a critical flaw. here's the problem, you recall that upon taking office president obama took several steps to pursue negotiations with iran. he famously suggested that if countries like iran are willing to unclench their fist, they'll find an extended hand from us. he recorded a youtube message to the iranian people. he also reportedly wrote a letter to iran's supreme leader inviting him to talk without pre-conditions on the basis of mutual respect. this was the engagement phase. it was during this phase that the president presented iran with two deadlines by which they could demonstrate progress. one in september 2009 and one in

december of 2009. but instead of using this period to demonstrate progress, iran used it to continue enriching uranium and to divide the international community. and by the following year, one of the administration's own former advisors on iran would have to admit that the administration had in his words discounted the extent to which the iranian theocracy views engagement with the u.s. as a threat to its id owe logical identity. meanwhile, congress was growing impatient. and that's why as the administration was trying and failing to negotiate a way iran's nuclear program, members of both parties in the house and senate came together and began to put in place a sanction strategy directed at iran's petroleum sector. many in this room strongly

supported this effort and made it quite clear that you did despite the administration's reluctance to embrace it. but congress urging and yours, the president did reluctantly sign the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and divestment act into law on july 1, 2010. [ applause ] but make no mistake with this legislation. with this legislation congress handed the president a tool that he did not seek. a tool he did not ask for. last year i worked to strengthen these sanctions with an amendment to the defense authorization act which sanctions foreign banks for doing business with the central bank of iran. this amendment became the basis for a negotiation with the obama administration on how best to sanction iran without causing a

shock to global oil markets. senator marc kur, who is unfortunately not able to be with us tonight -- [ applause ] not able to be with us tonight, but thankfully is recovering well, was the primary author of this legislation. [ applause ] and i know he'll remain vigilant in ensuring that the administration does not lightly issue wavers to those who'd like to evade these sanctions. but the bottom line is this, because of the failure of negotiations by the administration, congress was forced to act. and the president [ inaudible ] against his original wishes. and now the administration is making candidly another mistake. just as it initially sought to

rely prodedominantly on negotiations, it's now facing sanctions by the u.s. or the eu through its welcomed decision to cease iranian oil purchases starting in july, which is a step in the right direction. now the administration has attempted to rely on the am bigty of the military policy by claiming at every stage it continues to keep all options on the table. but this is not a policy. it's a talking point. and as we've seen, a talking point will not deter iran. look. what is needed when it comes to iran is the one thing the administration hasn't yet provided. and that's a clear declaratory

policy that states what we will do and why. here's the administration's mistake. here's the administration's mistake. in attempting to preserve all options, it has inadvertently blurred the most important one, and that's a determined military campaign to end iran's nuclear program. [ applause ] the administration has used the same language about preserving all options in developing its policy toward libya, iran and now syria.

clearly the threat has lost its intended purpose. and the markers this administration has identified whether they be a program to enrich uranium enrich uranium t weapons grade levels or a decision to construct a weapon are only truly red lines if crossing them only brings about painful consequences. another way to put it -- another way to put it is that the administration's mistake has been to pursue negotiations and sanctions consecutively than simultaneously. without articulating a clearle ml tear consequence for crossing those red lines. but in my view, the only way, the only way that the iranian regime can be expected to negotiate to preserve its own survival rather than delay as a

means of pursuing the nuclear weapons is if the administration imposes the strictest sanctions while at the same time enforcing a firm declaratory policy that reflects a commitment to the use of force. this is so crucial a step i believe that tonight, i'm prepared to propose such a policy. that is, a policy, a policy which has the clarity and tb specificity that the situation demands. and that policy is this, this is the policy i recommend -- if iran at any time, at any time begins to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels or decides to go forward with a weapons

program, then the united states will use overwhelming force to end that program. [ applause ] in my judgment, there is broad bipartisan support for the administration's stated goal with respect to iran and a strong declaratory policy like this can be expected to have the support of strong majority of both parties in congress and thus the solid support of the american people. [ applause ] so, look, all that has been lacking until now is a clear

declaratory policy, and if the administration is reluctant for some reason to articulate it, then congress will attempt to do it for them. [ applause ] so, tonight, i make the following commitment in support of the policy i have proposed, and it is this. if at any time the intelligence community presents to congress an assessment that iran has begun to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels or has taken a decision to develop a nuclear weapon, consistent with

protecting classified sources and methods, i will consult with the president and the joint congressional leadership and introduce before the senate an authorization for the use of military force. [ applause ] this authorization, if enacted will assure the nation and the world that the u.s. is wounded or retreating from global responsibilitie responsibilities. the authority that i suggest will be focused to ensure that people of iran and the

international community know that the disagreement is not with the population of iran or the muslim world, and the authorization will not prevent the administration from pursuing diplomatic measures, continued negotiations and consultation with our allies. on the contrary, it will strengthen. it will strengthen those efforts. this authorization will make clear that any effort by iran or its proxy forces to retaliate against the interest of the united states whether our personnel, our bases or freedom of the seas will be met by overwhelming force. [ applause ] for the u.s., this debate and the ultimate passage of an authorization for the use of

military force ensures that we have a coherent unified poll i is toward iran and that we not take on another military action without bipartisan support. and the decision to take military action against iran should not be taken lightly. it should have the broad bipartisan support of congress. for israel, it ensures that iran will never enter into a zone of immunity from which it can coerce and intimidate other countries. for the broader middle east, it ensures that iran will not be a regional hedgeman to exploit the region by terror or propaganda, especially into those countries experiencing unrest or political

turmoil after the arab spring. it is in the clear national interest of the united states to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the middle east, to end iran's support of terror in the shipments of arms to hezbollah and hamas and to protect the freedom of the seas and the persian gulf and the indian ocean. we share these interests with israel. we have exact ly the same interests. so we must face the threat of those interests together. four years ago in marking the 60th anniversary of israel, i noticed that while the bonds of israel and the u.s. have grown strong her in the decades, it was not until the events of 9/1 1 that most americans fully, fully appreciated the sacrifices that israel has made to preserve a fragile peace, but as strong as those bonds have become, we

cannot allow past or current expressions off mutual respect and goodwill to obscure the urgency of the iranian threat. rather, we must build on that hes tri of sha history of shared interests and shared respect to overcome a flawed policy and to develop the right one that the current situation demands. congress, and look, congress has played that role in the past, and current events compel us to do so again. and we will not shrink from that duty. israel's security is not negotiable. [ applause ]

we can't shrink from affirming that to the rest of the world. and we certainly can't shrink from telling a sitting president how we think it is best achieved. afterall, we share a common goal, and we will only achieve that goal as long as we work together. in all candor and mutual respect. once we have, and this current threat has passed, we will celebrate many more anniversaries and an even stronger bond of friendship yet. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.