WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism, on Thursday joined the Middle East Institute’s Views from the Hill for a discussion on the latest developments in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, his recent travels to the Middle East, and the importance of returning to the Iran nuclear deal as a way to de-escalate regional tensions. Murphy’s remarks were followed by a moderated conversation with Paul Salem, president of the Middle East Institute.

On the recent violence between Israelis and Palestinians, Murphy said: “Our collective heart here in the United States is breaking for Israelis and Palestinians… Zero sum politics practiced by both the Netanyahu government and Palestinian leadership have caused us to arrive at this point. Yes, the precipitating flashpoint was in my mind the unjustifiable eviction of Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem. The Netanyahu government’s campaign to make practically impossible a viable future Palestinian state has bred a sense of hopelessness for the future in the West Bank and Gaza. And it shouldn’t surprise anybody that at some point the pot was going to boil over. But the Palestinians have contributed to this path to crisis as well. Choosing Hamas, an organization that seeks the elimination of Israel, to lead Gaza was a disaster for Palestinians. And the [Palestinian Authority]’s inability to deliver basic services for its people and its cultivation of grievance against Israel is a big part of the story as to how we arrived at this moment.”

Murphy continued: “Right now, the focus needs to be on a ceasefire. Hamas needs to end all attacks on Israel. And Israel should take off the table a ground invasion of Gaza.”

On the importance of returning the Iran nuclear deal, Murphy said: “[I]f the United States does not reenter the Iran nuclear agreement, my belief is all this progress, nascent as it may be, will be at risk…Joe Biden ran on a promise to reenter the Iran nuclear agreement. He made this commitment because he knew the agreement was critical to American security…But Trump went in a different direction. Instead of building on the Iran deal, he decided to put to test the theory of its opponents: that if the U.S. imposed unilateral, crippling sanctions on Iran, leaders in Tehran would limp to the negotiating table, cowed and willing to put all the issues—nuclear enrichment, missiles, human rights, proxy support—up for discussion. That’s what Obama’s critics said he should have done, and those critics cheered when Trump took their advice. What happened, of course, was a policy cataclysm.” 

Murphy went on to discuss his recent travels to Qatar, Oman and Jordan where he saw achievable results if we were to re-enter the Iran nuclear deal. Murphy said: “This momentum toward reconciliation is encouraging, but it’s still so fragile. And one major setback—one major, unexpected diplomatic hiccup—could turn all of this progress around. I worry that that could be the failure of America and Iran to get back into the nuclear agreement.

Murphy concluded: “What we should all be worried about is that Trump’s Iran policy becomes, by accident, permanent. And this is what may occur if the Vienna talks fail. Iran will continue to speed up its nuclear research program, maximum pressure sanctions will continue, and a chill will be delivered to the de-escalation momentum in the Gulf. But on the other hand, reentering the deal, while effectively I would argue already priced into a Biden electoral win, will nonetheless be seen as a diplomatic victory at a perfect time to score a win for diplomacy in the region. And the Middle East countries who have found new affection for a U.S.-Iran agreement, they’ll exhale. The restarted agreement could be a platform for the Saudis and the Iranians to keep talking about a new regional security architecture; it will make it less likely that Iran will use conflicts like Yemen to provoke the United States and our allies; and the P5+1 will be reunited on Iran policy, allowing us to work together with a unified front to address Iran’s other destabilizing activity.

“I’m not naïve. The Middle East still has too many intractable crises…[and] the events of the last several days in Israel and Gaza are a reminder of the grave challenges that remain. But there is an overall mood of de-escalation in and around the Gulf…[and] the best way for the U.S. to nurture those grass shoots is to restart the Iran nuclear deal,” Murphy said.

On Monday, Murphy held a press call to discuss his recent travels to Qatar, Oman and Jordan. Murphy’s trip included meetings with foreign leaders and senior officials including Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Omani Foreign Minister Al-Busaidi, Qatari Foreign Minister Al-Thani, United Nations Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths and several European ambassadors to Yemen to discuss the humanitarian crisis and urgent need to find a political solution to end the war in Yemen. Murphy joined senior members of the Biden Administration – including Yemen Special Envoy Tim Lenderking, U.S. State Department Counselor Derek Chollet and National Security Council Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa Brett McGurk – during parts of the trip and discussed the reform agenda in the Middle East; prospects for preserving the two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians; instability in Syria and the refugee crisis; and the need to restart the Iran nuclear deal. On Saturday, Murphy also released a statement about the violence in Jerusalem.  

A full transcript of Murphy’s opening remarks can be found below:

“The purpose of my remarks this morning is to really speak about my primary takeaway from my recent trip to the Middle East that Kate referenced, and to really talk about the urgency of restarting the Iran nuclear agreement. But before I make this case I do want to say a few words about the recent escalation of violence in Israel and Gaza and there will likely be questions and discussion about what is happening this week.

“Our collective heart here in the United States is breaking for Israelis and Palestinians. The images we’re watching are just bone chilling. Rockets, interceptors streaking across the night sky, parents huddled with their children as sirens ring out, images of innocent civilians including kids injured or killed in the blasts.

“Zero sum politics practiced by both the Netanyahu government and Palestinian leadership have caused us to arrive at this point. Yes, the precipitating flashpoint was in my mind the unjustifiable eviction of Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem. The Netanyahu government’s campaign to make practically impossible a viable future Palestinian state, it has bred a sense of hopelessness for the future in the West Bank and Gaza. And it shouldn’t surprise anybody that at some point the pot was going to boil over.

“But the Palestinians have contributed to this path to crisis as well. Choosing Hamas, an organization that seeks the elimination of Israel, to lead Gaza was a disaster for Palestinians. And the PA’s inability to deliver basic services for its people and its cultivation of grievance against Israel is a big part of the story as to how we arrived at this moment.

“But let’s be honest, the United States, especially during the last four years, we’ve played a role too. President Trump rejected America’s historic role as a broker for peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. President Trump’s rejection, his effective rejection of a Palestinian state and his refusal to mediate, it helped to drive the two sides further apart.

“Right now, the focus needs to be on a ceasefire. Hamas needs to end all attacks on Israel. 

“And Israel should take off the table a ground invasion of Gaza. No doubt, Israel possesses the military power to destroy Gaza. But when children die in Gaza, it does nothing to secure Israel. In fact, it does the opposite—it provides further fuel to this furnace of grievances.

“I’m glad the administration is sending Deputy Assistant Secretary Amr to the region. It’s critical we get a formal U.S. Ambassador to Israel soon as well so we can start playing a more direct role in, once again, mediating between Israelis and Palestinians.

“Now, let me talk about my recent visit to the region.

“I recently spent about five days there crossing paths with a flock of Biden officials who were making stops throughout the region as well, and listen, I can honestly report that setting aside the conflict in Israel, and I know this week it’s difficult to construct a narrative of the region that sets aside that conflict, there is something positive is afoot in the Middle East. 

“The four-year-long rift between Qatar and its Gulf neighbors is healing. There’s a new diplomatic energy behind ceasefire talks in Yemen, and the Saudis and the Iranians are in direct talks for the first time in years. All of this, I was told repeatedly by leaders in the Middle East is happening because President Biden has made clear that de-escalation will be rewarded and supported by the United States. This is a stark departure from the Trump administration.

“This is good news. But the bad news quickly follows: if the United States does not re-enter the Iran nuclear agreement, my belief is all this progress, nascent as it may be, will be at risk, and this is what I primarily want to talk about today.

“Joe Biden ran on a promise to reenter the Iran nuclear agreement. He made this commitment because he knew that the agreement was critical to American security. With Iran’s nuclear program curtailed and inspectors allowed to comb every inch of the country to look for signs of a secret enrichment program, the world could breathe a sigh of relief knowing that for all of Iran’s other malevolent policies, at least we could be certain that they were not developing a nuclear weapon. The achievement of the deal, of course, brought together unlikely bedfellows: the U.S., Europe, Russia, and China. And on Iran policy, this coalition of regular adversaries was intact at the end of the Obama administration. It was ready to be picked up by President Trump to confront Iran’s ballistic missile program and their support for regional proxy forces like Hezbollah.

“But Trump went in a different direction. Instead of building on the Iran deal, he decided to put to test the theory of its opponents: that if the U.S. imposed unilateral, crippling sanctions on Iran, leaders in Tehran would limp to the negotiating table, cowed and willing to put all the issues—nuclear enrichment, missiles, human rights, proxy support—up for discussion. That’s what Obama’s critics said he should have done, and those critics cheered when Trump took their advice.

“What happened, of course, was a policy cataclysm. Trump imposed the sanctions, and our partners, instead of following America’s lead, effectively took the Iranian side, even helping Iran work around our sanctions. Making matters worse, when Trump sent word to the Iranians of America’s 12 demands, they refused to talk. Instead, they ratcheted up their bad behavior. They sent more support to the Houthis in Yemen, they restarted dormant parts of their nuclear program—reducing their breakout time to a weapon from over a year to somewhere around three months—and they resumed attacks on American forces in the region, both directly and through proxies. In fact, Iranian-backed attacks on U.S. installments in Iraq have become so frequent that they barely make the news anymore.

“Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ campaign was a spectacular failure, and the definitive proof that the alternative approach, cheered by the Iran deal’s opponents—keeping sanctions in place until Iran totally capitulates—was a fantasy. Instead, the situation has empowered the more hardline wing of an already extreme regime who are prepared to perpetually operate a resistance economy and blame the United States for all of Iran’s suffering.

“But now, those same U.S. critics are back, and incredibly, despite the writing inked on the wall during the past four years, their argument hasn’t changed a bit. Just keep doing what Trump did, and this time it will work. They suggest that getting back into the deal, as Biden pledged during his campaign, isn’t enough. They want a new deal that includes a resolution of all of Iran’s bad acts. But unless we are prepared to invade Iran and demand unconditional surrender—and newsflash: we’re not—then that comprehensive, soup-to-nuts deal is a neoconservative fantasy. It doesn’t exist in real life.

“In real life, the achievable result is a restart of the nuclear agreement. But the good news is that this result, in 2021, might have an even greater peace dividend than when it was first executed in 2015. This brings me back to my recent trip to the region. For example, I heard the story of how quickly talks on healing the GCC rift matured as soon as Biden won the election. Countries that were at each other’s throats throughout the Trump Administration were suddenly coming to terms with each other. The reason was simple: while conflict, bullying and score settling—Trump’s calling cards—were rewarded during his term, countries quickly realized that diplomacy and de-escalation would most quickly win favor with President Biden. In Oman, I heard how the Saudis were suddenly much more willing to make additional concessions in Yemen, and how the Houthis were now more likely to trust the U.S. as an interlocutor. In Jordan, the King talked about an Iraqi government that was more welcoming than ever of help from places other than Tehran, and he spoke of Jordan’s new overtures to a Baghdad government that was looking for a more diverse set of allies. And everybody in the region, at every stop on my trip, buzzed about the new dialogue between the Saudis and Iranians. Reports suggested that these two countries wanted to begin talks during the Trump Administration, but were discouraged from doing so.

“The momentum toward reconciliation is encouraging, but it’s still so fragile. And one major setback—one major, unexpected diplomatic hiccup—could turn all of this progress around. I worry that that could be the failure of America and Iran to get back into the nuclear agreement.

“If the talks fail and the Biden administration is forced to implement Trump’s Iran policy for the next four years, complete with the continuation of these unilateral, crippling sanctions it’s easy to see how all this progress could disintegrate. The so-called Iranian moderates would head back to Tehran with no deal and be defeated in upcoming elections. A harder line government, much less prone to diplomacy, would be chosen to take over, scuttle peace talks over Yemen, end outreach to the Saudis, work like mad to make sure their proxies in Iraq take power in the upcoming parliamentary elections. This could convince the Saudis to double down again militarily in Yemen, and open up new fissures in the Gulf.

“Now, maybe this is an overly apocalyptic vision of what could occur if the nuclear negotiations go south, but I fear it is more accurate than fantastical. The stakes might be this high.

“Which, lastly, brings me to the negotiations in Vienna, and I want to take just a few minutes to talk about some of the details. If the consequences of success are so promising, and the ramifications of failure are so dire, then what has to happen in order to guarantee a good outcome? First, the structure of the talks are deeply problematic. The Iranians have refused to negotiate directly with the United States, that’s on them. We’re left to pass notes back and forth through intermediaries. During my trip, I heard of some overtures to facilitate direct talks, but so long as the Iranians stubbornly refuse to sit across from our team, then failure is absolutely an option.

“Increasingly, countries in Iran’s neighborhood that were hostile to or neutral to the talks in 2015 suddenly have their eyes wide open to the positive benefit of the deal’s restart. And so we should work to make sure that Middle East leaders who have the ear of the Iranian government or the Supreme Leader, they apply appropriate pressure. Those countries should make clear that Iran’s relationships in the region will be at risk if they fail to get back into the deal.

“On our side of the ledger, we need to be willing to be creative on sanctions relief. Of course, any restart of the nuclear agreement, it’s going to require the U.S. to drop the sanctions Trump applied to Iran’s economy that have the same practical and effective impact as the Obama-era nuclear sanctions.

“But what about the other sanctions Trump layered on top of the economic sanctions? Let me give you an example, it should be expected that the Iranians would want us to lift Trump’s designation of their primary military force—the IRGC—as a terrorist organization. This wasn’t strictly a ‘nuclear sanction,’ but, let’s be honest, it was certainly a key part of Trump’s maximum pressure campaign and it was specifically designed to bring Iran back to the negotiating table on their nuclear program.

“In evaluating the wisdom of peeling back these non-economic sanctions, it’s important to remember that they were all completely feckless—these sanctions had no impact. In fact, their only impact was to worsen Iran’s behavior. So, lifting them would have no practical negative impact.

“Just as importantly, lifting that particular designation – a rather technical exercise under U.S. statute –  actually doesn’t prevent us from sanctioning the truly bad actors in the Iranian military. For example, we have sanctions on some of the most brutal IRGC interrogators. Those would stay in place, even if we lifted the blanket IRGC designation.

“Now, this is just one example of a Trump-era sanction whose erasure would have little to no practical impact. But there are many more. But I use this example to show how weighing the equities, the benefit of getting back into the deal, is going to be far greater than the imaginary benefit of keeping many of Trump’s non-economic sanctions in place.

“Now, let’s be clear. If sanctions like this are removed in order to get back into the deal, opponents of the agreement are going to cry bloody murder. They will accuse Biden of giving more than Obama gave. But of course, this is the exact trap that Trump purposely set for his successor. He applied sanctions on Iran in connection with the pullout of the nuclear deal, but called them non-nuclear sanctions, hoping that the next President would be caught in this sticky web. Biden should not be bound by Trump’s tortured sanctions logic. 

“But just as importantly, let me assure you that no matter the particulars or the details of an agreement to restart the nuclear deal, the deal’s critics are going to loudly oppose the agreement. They opposed it in 2015. They’re going to oppose it today. And my advice to the Biden negotiating team is that they shouldn’t be under the impression that they are going to win a whole new crowd of allies just because they find some innovative way to thread the negotiating needle.

“What we should all be worried about is that Trump’s Iran policy becomes, by accident, permanent. And this is what may occur if the Vienna talks fail. Iran will continue to speed up its nuclear research program, maximum pressure sanctions will continue, and a chill will be delivered to the de-escalation momentum in the Gulf.

“But, on the other hand, reentering the deal, while effectively I would argue already priced into a Biden electoral win, will nonetheless be seen as a diplomatic victory at a perfect time to score a win for diplomacy in the region. And the Middle East countries who have found new affection for a U.S.-Iran agreement, they’ll exhale. The restarted agreement could be a platform for the Saudis and the Iranians to keep talking about a new regional security architecture; it will make it less likely that Iran will use conflicts like Yemen to provoke the United States and our allies; and the P5+1 will be reunited on Iran policy, allowing us to work together with a unified front to address Iran’s other destabilizing activity.

“Now, I’m not naïve. The Middle East still has too many intractable crises. Paul’s in Lebanon today, the events of the last several days in Israel and Gaza are a reminder of the grave challenges that remain. But there is an overall mood of de-escalation in and around the Gulf, and I think it’s real. And it’s much better than the old incentive structure for escalation. So I see the roots of positive change slowly, quietly growing. It’s hard to see it through the fire and rocket attacks of the last week, but, right now, the best way for the U.S. to nurture those grass shoots is to restart the Iran nuclear deal.”

###