A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America

by Ted Cruz

  But the president was convinced he could reverse three decades of Iranian hostility with conciliation, understanding, and a perceived indifference to Iranian atrocities. This is a naïve worldview—the same liberal credulity espoused by Jimmy Carter and others, until they are awakened to the folly of coddling and excusing extremism. Sadly, President Obama hasn’t learned that lesson. When, in 2009 in response to the fraudulent reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranians poured into the streets to demand basic democratic freedoms and the mullahs brutally crushed the revolt, there was scarcely a word from the United States. And the episode certainly didn’t change Obama’s approach. Over the next few years he tried to forge a friendship with Iranian radicals, sending personal letters to Ayatollah Khamenei and reaching out by cell phone to Iranian president Hasan Rouhani.

  Eventually, in the fall of 2013, in response to Obama’s persistence, the Iranians agreed to the first direct negotiations between our two governments since the extremists took power. The agreement, the administration claimed, was a “first step” toward addressing “our concerns over the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program.”

  Of course, this dialogue with Iran was something Obama had pledged to undertake since he first ran for the White House. But one cannot negotiate from weakness—especially with bullies and tyrants.

  America has always believed in peace through strength. It was a mistake, a profound mistake, to lead the world in relaxing sanctions against Iran. That was at the outset of the negotiations, before anything real had been agreed to. As a result, billions of dollars have already flowed into Iran. All the while, Iran continues building centrifuges, enriching uranium, and developing its ICBM program.

  In the 1990s, the Clinton administration followed the same pattern, leading the world in relaxing sanctions against North Korea; as a result, billions of dollars flowed into that country, and they used that money to develop nuclear weapons. Ironically, the Obama administration recruited the very same person—Wendy Sherman—who had led the failed North Korea talks to become our lead negotiator with Iran. But here the results are likely to be far worse.

  With North Korea, both Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un were radical and unpredictable, but both father and son were and are megalomaniacal narcissists. That means some degree of rational deterrence is possible, because neither was willing to risk losing power. Supreme Leader Khamenei and the Iranian mullahs are religious radicals, who embrace death and martyrdom. As a result, ordinary cost-benefit analysis is far less reliable.

  Here are some of the statements Khamenei has made about Israel:

  • “Israel is the sinister, unclean rabid dog of the region.”

  • “The foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.”

  • “Israel’s leaders sometimes threaten Iran, but they know that if they do a damn thing, the Islamic Republic will raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground.”

  Hassan Tehrani Moghadam, who has been described as the brains behind Iran’s ballistic missile program (he was assassinated in 2011), said the following in his last will and testament: “Write on my tombstone: This is the grave of someone who wanted to annihilate Israel.”

  Given this religious zealotry, if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons capability, there is a real chance its leaders would actually use those weapons, either in the skies of Tel Aviv or even on New York or Los Angeles.

  Even if Iran ended up not using its nuclear weapons, the immediate result would be that the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf would move to acquire their own. We would see nuclear proliferation across the most dangerous region of the world, with governments that often have shady ties to radical Islamic terrorist groups. It would be a powder keg, waiting to explode. And that is the best-case scenario.

  And, it is worth noting, the Iranian mullahs’ hatred is not just limited to Israel. At a large public rally in 2014 (right in the middle of the Obama negotiations), Khamenei cried out that the United States is “the greatest violator of human rights in the world.” The crowd responded, chanting in unison, “Death to America!”

  One of the simplest principles of geopolitics: When somebody tells you they want to kill you, believe them. And yet Obama and Clinton and Kerry persist in believing that we can reach a reasonable common ground with these Islamic hard-liners.

  If we are to negotiate, fine; but we need less carrot and more stick. For that reason, I’ve introduced legislation to immediately reimpose sanctions, and to strengthen them even further. That legislation lays out a clear path to lifting the sanctions: Iran must 1) disassemble all 19,000 centrifuges; 2) hand over all of its enriched uranium; 3) shut down its ICBM program (which exists for the sole purpose of striking America); and 4) cease being the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

  The Obama negotiations presuppose a “right to enrich.” Individuals and nations have long been recognized to have rights to life and liberty, but there is no natural right to enrich uranium. And Iran’s conduct had demonstrated it cannot be trusted with the materiel for nuclear weaponry.

  Moreover, any relaxation of sanctions should occur only after Iran releases the American citizens it has unjustly imprisoned. For example, Iran has sentenced American pastor Saeed Abedini to eight years in prison, for the “crime” of building an orphanage and peacefully practicing his Christian faith. Convicted of attempting to undermine the Islamic state, he has endured beatings in prison and the denial of medical care. Throughout his ordeal, Pastor Saeed has led dozens of his captors and fellow prisoners to Christ.

  And while American negotiators met and broke bread with Iranians in Paris and Geneva and Vienna, Iran chose to transfer Pastor Saeed from the brutal Evin prison to the even more horrific Rajai Shahr, where they house their death row. The day of the transfer? “Death to America Day.”

  We should demand the release of Pastor Saeed, along with his fellow prisoner of conscience Amir Hekmati, imprisoned journalist Jason Rezaian, and yet another American, Robert Levinson. Meanwhile the Obama administration focuses more on a misguided nuclear deal than on protecting our nation or freeing American citizens from wrongful captivity.

  We have two more years of President Obama’s presidency, and the foreign policy wreckage across the globe increases every day. My approach in the Senate has been to try to do everything possible to minimize the damage.

  I’ve worked hard to try to build bipartisan agreement, addressing some of the clearest challenges to national security. And, by focusing on bipartisan approaches to national security, we’ve had remarkable success.

  For example, last year, Iran named Hamid Aboutalebi to be its ambassador to the United Nations. Aboutalebi is a known terrorist who participated in holding Americans hostage in Tehran for 444 days in 1979 and 1980 (he claims he was “just a translator”). His nomination was a deliberate slap in the face to the United States by the Islamic Republic.

  In Washington, there was much consternation over Iran’s belligerent actions. Yet people on both sides of the aisle were resigned that there was nothing we could do about it. International norms dictated we must accept any ambassador that a member nation of the United Nations has selected. While there was precedent for blocking particularly odious foreign leaders from entering the United States for UN General Assembly meetings, ambassadors had not been blocked. It just wasn’t done.

  It seemed to me that, regardless of protocol, it was altogether unacceptable to have one of the 1979 Iranian hostage takers walking the streets of Manhattan with diplomatic immunity. It was absurd to see Iran exploiting the UN to insult America—while, I might add, we were engaged in direct negotiations over their nuclear program.

  I wanted to find a way to stop Aboutalebi from being admitted. Our research uncovered an existing statute that allowed the Department of State to reject a visa application for an ambassador on the grounds that he had been a spy. We drafted legislation amending that statute to also include former terr
orists.

  Our legislation received support from senators as varied as Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, and New York Democrat Chuck Schumer. Indeed, when Schumer sang my praises on the Senate floor, I came up to him and said with a laugh, “Chuck, you better be careful. . . . Lightning’s going to strike you!”

  Our legislation passed the U.S. Senate 100 to nothing. It then went to the House of Representatives, where it also passed unanimously. Then, on the afternoon of Good Friday, President Obama signed it into law.

  As a result, a known terrorist was not allowed into the United States, and in January 2015 Iran named another nominee to be its UN ambassador.

  A couple of weeks later, the president spoke at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. This was one of those elite media events where the president is expected to give a humorous speech in front of the black-tied glitterati. In the speech, Obama observed, “Just a couple of weeks ago Ted Cruz introduced legislation that I signed into law. Here’s a picture of the signing ceremony.” He put up a picture of himself, of me, and of the Devil . . . and Hell freezing over.

  I’ve also worked hard to protect U.S. sovereignty, a deep passion of mine ever since we prevailed over the UN and the World Court in Medellín v. Texas. Toward that end, I was very glad to be able to significantly modify legislation to prevent the diminishment of America’s authority at the International Monetary Fund. Specifically, when Russia invaded Ukraine, the world rightly decried that as an act of war. Congress responded by imposing sanctions on Russia and also offering an aid package to our friends in Ukraine. But then the Obama administration cynically decided to use that Ukrainian aid package as an excuse to force through a long-standing and irrelevant priority: the administration’s expansion of the IMF.

  The proposed “reform” would have increased the exposure of U.S. taxpayers by billions of dollars. It would have undermined the influence of the United States at the IMF and decreased our voting share. And, perversely, it would have increased the influence in voting share of Russia. That was certainly a strange way to punish Vladimir Putin for invading Ukraine.

  When I went to the Senate floor and objected to the IMF reforms, my objection was met with scorn. Senators from both parties denounced me for slowing down the Russia sanctions bill. The passionate and at times volcanic John McCain—with whom in the past year I’ve actually struck up an unlikely friendship—excoriated me on the floor. His most reliable ally, Lindsey Graham, pulled him aside and pointed out humorously, “John, it’s not like Ted is actually driving a Russian tank into Ukraine!”

  My objection stopped the legislation that day, and over the ensuing week more and more public attention was focused on the problematic IMF reforms. I worked with Rand Paul on a letter to Harry Reid arguing that these provisions were preventing us from getting strong bipartisan legislation out of Congress on Ukraine. We urged our friends in the House not to go along with giving up U.S. sovereignty to an unelected international body. And it worked. Just one week later, President Obama and Harry Reid surrendered entirely, stripping the IMF provisions from the legislation. The bill then passed the Senate, 98–2.* Without my objection, the misguided IMF “reform” would have likely passed as well. What passed instead was far better for U.S. interests.

  I was also able to introduce and pass into law several positive amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, in 2013 and again in 2014. In particular, I teamed with Mike Lee to increase the protection of religious liberty in the military, and to protect chaplains from threats to their faith; mandated that the Defense Department address the growing threat of missile attack from the Gulf of Mexico; joined with John Cornyn to prohibit the military from purchasing Russian-made helicopters; invited Taiwan to join in the Navy’s Rim of the Pacific military exercise; and prohibited a new domestic base realignment and closure (BRAC) process until the Defense Department first conducts an overseas BRAC process.

  I was also proud to introduce and pass an amendment to allow the victims of Nidal Hasan’s terrorist attack on Fort Hood to receive the Purple Heart. Major Hasan murdered fourteen innocent souls (including an unborn child), while shouting “Allahu Akbar.” He had earlier communicated with a radical Islamic cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, to inquire about the permissibility of jihad against his fellow soldiers. And yet, inexplicably, the Obama administration refused to call the attack terrorism, instead classifying it as “workplace violence.” For five years, the victims of the Fort Hood attack were wrongly denied the Purple Heart. But in 2014, over the strenuous objections of the administration, I was able to win bipartisan support for my amendment. And, in 2015, the Army finally awarded the Fort Hood victims the Purple Heart.

  Another deep and abiding passion has been strengthening our friendship with the nation of Israel, an alliance that has been profoundly undermined in the Obama administration. Unfortunately, over the past six years, the Obama administration has demonstrated an unprecedented hostility to the Jewish state, and its actions have weakened not only our alliance but Israel’s very security.

  I believe we have no greater friend in the Middle East. Like us, Israel is a nation of immigrants, a country based on ideas, on our shared Judeo-Christian, democratic values. I also believe that from a purely American point of view, supporting Israel is tremendously beneficial to our national security interests. It is also in our economic interests. Since being elected, I have visited Israel three times and have worked hard to repair the damage the administration has done to this vital relationship.

  In the summer of 2014, three boys—Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaar, and Eyal Yifrach—were kidnapped by Hamas terrorists in Israel. These Jewish teenagers went missing for three agonizing weeks. Naftali Fraenkel had family in Brooklyn. I had the opportunity to sit down with his aunt, a lovely woman who was praying fervently for her nephew.

  Fourteen days into their abduction, I gave a Senate speech alongside photos of each of the three boys. As Stalin chillingly observed, one death is a tragedy, and a million a statistic. My hope was to personalize these boys, to make them real. Naftali, age sixteen, played guitar, and enjoyed Ping-Pong. Gilad, also sixteen, enjoyed scuba diving and cooking, and liked to bake pastries for his five sisters. Eyal, the oldest at nineteen, loved sports and singing. I called on the Hamas terrorists who had taken them—whose leaders were publicly celebrating—to give these boys back.

  I did not know it at the time, but the boys had already been murdered: shot, execution-style, by Hamas.

  In response, I introduced legislation providing for the State Department to offer a $5 million reward for information leading to the capture of the terrorists who kidnapped and murdered Naftali Fraenkel. Because Naftali was a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, there was precedent under the Rewards for Justice program. That legislation was cosponsored by New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez, then the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Cruz-Menendez legislation passed the Senate unanimously.

  Companion legislation was introduced in the House, and it was on a path to passage when, thankfully, the Israeli military captured the Hamas terrorists responsible.

  After the boys’ bodies were discovered, the world saw rockets rain down upon Israel. The Israel Defense Forces discovered terror tunnels dug underneath the border from the Gaza Strip, coming up into Israeli schools and other civilian targets. Hamas was planning a massive attack—apparently on the holy day of Rosh Hashanah—in which thousands of terrorists would pour into Israel to kidnap children and murder Jews while they celebrated the holiday.

  Israel acted as any sovereign nation would in self-defense. The IDF moved into Gaza and attacked Hamas strongholds and destroyed the tunnels. Yet doing so was rendered significantly more difficult by the international outcry over the inevitable civilian casualties. The IDF took extraordinary measures to minimize such casualties, going so far as to drop leaflets warning civilians to evacuate specific targets. But Hamas managed to dramatically increase the number of casualties by preventing ci
vilians from fleeing and by deliberately using women and children as human shields. They even located the Hamas headquarters in the basement of a hospital. Hamas also placed their rockets in UN schools.

  I thought this was a key example of how little the terrorist group cares about the well-being or even the lives of the Palestinian people. So I joined with New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand in introducing a resolution condemning Hamas’s use of human shields as a war crime. Our resolution passed the Senate unanimously, and then passed the House unanimously as well.

  Another example of successfully changing administration policy concerned the Federal Aviation Administration’s ban on U.S. flights to Israel. At the height of the rocket attacks, the administration did something unprecedented. After a Hamas rocket—one of the very few not intercepted by the marvelous Iron Dome missile defense system—fell about a mile from Ben-Gurion Airport, the FAA announced a ban on U.S. airlines flying into the country. During the entire history of Israel, even in times of war and turmoil, the FAA had never before banned such flights. Such a ban was a serious blow to Israel’s economy at a moment when the country was under attack.

  So I asked a very simple question: Has the Obama administration launched an economic boycott on Israel? The FAA, I pointed out, did not ban flights to Pakistan or Yemen or Afghanistan. The FAA did not even ban flights into much of Ukraine, despite the fact that only a month earlier a passenger airplane had been shot down by a Russian BUK missile. Why was Israel being singled out?

  And why was it precisely timed to coincide with John Kerry’s arriving in the Middle East with $47 million in aid for Gaza, aid that would inevitably end up in the hands of Hamas? Why was the administration putting economic pressure on Israel while at the same time using political pressure to stop their military campaign of destroying the rockets and tunnels?

  Within an hour, a State Department spokeswoman was asked the question I had posed: whether the FAA’s ban was in fact an economic boycott of the nation of Israel. She dismissed the suggestion as “ridiculous” and refused to address questions about the FAA’s unprecedented actions. I therefore announced that I would place a hold on all State Department nominees until they answered these pressing questions.