SecDef, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Reveal Obama Admin Did Not Consult Military on $1.7 Billion Iran Ransom Payments

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) questioned Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford in a Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing. During questioning, the top military officials revealed that the Obama administration failed to seek military advice on its recent $1.7 billion cash ransom payment to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is designated by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. In addition to acknowledging that they had no prior knowledge of the hostage deal, Gen. Dunford and Secretary Carter described the payment to Iran as a “political” and “diplomatic” decision. 

Sen. Cruz: General, in your judgment, was flying $1.7 billion in unmarked cash to give to the Iranian government incentivizing positive behavior from Iran? 

Gen. Dunford: Senator, I’m not trying to be evasive, but I don’t know the details of that arrangement, and it really was a political decision that was made to provide that money…

Sen. Cruz: Does it concern you, if the United States is now in the business of paying ransom to terrorist governments for releasing Americans, the incentive that we face for future terrorists and future terrorist governments to attempt to kidnap and hold for ransom Americans?

Sec. Carter: …I don’t know all the details of it, and the Chairman and I were not involved in that. It is a decision that was taken by the law enforcement and the diplomatic community…

Gen. Dunford: …our policy in the past is that we don’t pay ransom for hostages, and I think that’s held us in good stead in the past. But again, I don’t know the arrangements that were made in this particular case, and I can’t make a judgment as to whether or not that’s what we did. All I’ve done is read the open source reporting on that. 

Watch Sen. Cruz’s line of questioning in its entirety here. Read the senator’s full statement and exchanges below: 

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Carter and General Dunford, thank you for being here today. Thank you for your testimony on the critical national security threats facing our country. 

“The last seven years we’ve had an administration that has in many ways neutered itself and ignored one transgression after another from our enemies, and as a result, our adversaries are continuing to increase their belligerence. 

“Iran has received no meaningful repercussions for illegally seizing American Sailors and endeavoring to humiliate them and has since increased their aggressive tactics and harassment of U.S. Navy vessels operating in the Arabian Gulf. 

“For months, Russia has been ramping up the pressure on our military, previously flying within 30 feet of a U.S. Navy warship and most recently flying within 10 feet of a U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft; and instead of treating these as escalatory acts from an adversary, Secretary Kerry rewarded Russia by agreeing to share intelligence in Syria.  

“These examples don’t even touch on Iranian and North Korean efforts to develop their ICBM programs, nor the expansion of ISIS beyond the Middle East. Sadly, this week’s terror attacks in New York, Minnesota, and New Jersey once again demonstrated that radical Islamic terrorism continues to threaten our safety. By any reasonable estimate, we can conclude that our national security interests are at serious risk. 

“I want to thank both of you for your service during such a pivotal and dangerous time in our nation’s history and for your leadership of our men and women in uniform. 

“I want to ask you, starting with Iran, what is and what should be our response to escalating Iranian belligerence and threats?” 

Sec. Carter: First of all, thank you very much, Senator, for that. You hit them all – the five parts of our military strategy that are reflected in what we’re trying to get in our budget – namely counter ISIL, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. All of those present very different but serious challenges that have a serious military dimension to them. 

With respect to Iran, notwithstanding the nuclear deal, which was good in the sense that it, if implemented faithfully which it is being so far, removed nuclear weapons from our concerns about Iran. It did nothing to alleviate other concerns we have: their malign influence, their support for terrorism, their malign influence in the region. This is why, to give you one answer to your question, why we have a strong, ready presence in the Gulf. This gets back to our readiness discussion. It’s not just about ISIL, we have a big up-tempo to defeat ISIL. We’re going to do that – it takes a lot of force structure, but also readiness consumed doing that, consumed in a good thing, because we’re defeating ISIL. But we’re also standing strong in the Gulf. That means defending our friends and allies there, defending our interests, and countering Iranian malign influence, so it is an enduring commitment of ours. Let me ask the Chairman to join in.

Gen. Dunford: Senator, I think just from a military perspective, there are three things we need to do. Number one is we need to make sure the inventory of the Joint Force can deal with Iranian challenges that do range from ballistic missile defense to the malign influence that you spoke about earlier. Number two, we need to make sure in our day to day operations we make it clear that we’re going to sail, fly, and operate wherever international law allows us to, and we’ll continue to do that. Number three, as the Secretary said, we need to have a robust presence in the region that makes it very clear that we have the capability to deter and respond to Iranian aggression. Those would be the three elements that we need to have from a military perspective to give our president whatever options he may need to have. 

Sen. Cruz: General, in your judgment, was flying $1.7 billion in unmarked cash to give to the Iranian government incentivizing positive behavior from Iran?

Gen. Dunford: Senator, I’m not trying to be evasive, but I don’t know the details of that arrangement, and it really was a political decision that was made to provide that money. And I don’t think it’s appropriate that I comment on that. 

Sen. Cruz: Let me ask it this way. I spoke yesterday to Pastor Saeed Abedini who was one of the American hostages held in Iran, and Pastor Saeed described how when he was preparing to fly out that his captors told him they were going to wait until the plane load of cash landed. And if the plane load of cash didn’t land, he wasn’t flying out. And when $400 million touched down in cash, they allowed him to fly out. Now under any ordinary use of language, that would seem to be payment of a ransom. Does it concern you, if the United States is now in the business of paying ransom to terrorist governments for releasing Americans, the incentive that we face for future terrorists and future terrorist governments to attempt to kidnap and hold for ransom Americans?

Sec. Carter: Senator, let me jump in here for the Chairman. We weren’t involved in this. This was the settlement of a legal case that was longstanding. I don’t know all the details of it, and the Chairman and I were not involved in that. It is a decision that was taken by the law enforcement and the diplomatic community, and I would have to refer you there.

Sen. Cruz: Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that but I would like an answer from General Dunford to the military question, whether in his professional military judgment it concerns him the precedent of paying ransom for Americans to terrorist governments. 

Gen. Dunford: Senator, without commenting on whether or not that was ransom, again because I don’t know the details, our policy in the past is that we don’t pay ransom for hostages, and I think that’s held us in good stead in the past. But again, I don’t know the arrangements that were made in this particular case, and I can’t make a judgment as to whether or not that’s what we did. All I’ve done is read the open source reporting on that. 

Sen. Cruz: Thank you.

 

###