Rep. Ted Deutch (D., Fla.) called it essential that "the United States send an unequivocal message to Assad and to other brutal regimes around the world, especially Iran," during the House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on Syria Wednesday:
REPRESENTATIVE THEODORE DEUTCH (D-FL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, thanks for calling this very important hearing. And, Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, thanks for being here.
I believe we stand at a pivotal moment where Congress is either going to uphold its duty to protect our national security, or we're going to retreat from our moral and strategic obligations. I believe our vote on what will have to be ultimately a very narrowly drawn resolution will determine whether Congress stands up for human rights or puts us on a dangerous path, isolation; or the Congress will increase American influence in the Middle East, or allow our power to dramatically shrink. I stand behind the president's request for limited and targeted strikes without U.S. troops on the ground against a regime that's guilty of heinous chemical weapons attacks on its own people.
And I know that this is a difficult decision. I know that some of my colleagues wish that we had done a lot more before now, and I know that my colleagues, other colleagues, wish to do nothing now. And I acknowledge the difficulty of being unable to predict Assad's next move. Secretary Hagel, you spoke to that.
This is a hard choice, and I don't think any of us relish making it. No use of force can ever be taken lightly. But inaction here, I believe, will dramatically harm our national security by emboldening the vile Syrian regime, its terrorist proxies and its Iranian patron.
I think it's essential that the United States send an unequivocal message to Assad and to other brutal regimes around the world, especially Iran, that when the United States Congress, when the president and when every civilized nation on Earth says that you cannot gas innocent children to death, you can't use chemical weapons of mass destruction, then -- and weapons of mass destruction -- then we mean it. I believe Americans -- America's credibility is on the line in Syria.
We all saw the gut-wrenching images of children, of women, of families lying dead, cruelly and coldly murdered by Assad. This strike, if it is to occur, is about preventing such atrocities now and in the future, preventing the continued use of chemical weapons in Syria, and preventing those weapons from being used by terrorist groups like Hezbollah that threaten our allies and our citizens.
But American credibility is also on the line in Iran. Much like the red line set in Syria, the president has -- and this committee has in strongly bipartisan fashion -- set a clear red line that we will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons capability. If Congress votes down a limited authorization, then to Iran's leaders, our red line against their development of nuclear weapons is meaningless.
The sanctions that we passed unanimously out of this committee and 400 members supported on the House floor will be rendered largely worthless because they're not backed up by a credible threat of force.
Secretary Kerry, I believe, if we want to do everything in our power to solve the Iranian nuclear issue without military action, then we must support this authorization. By authorizing the use of force against Syria, America will make abundantly clear to the world, including Iran, that using chemical weapons or defying international law in pursuit of nuclear weapons will not be tolerated by this nation.
So make no mistake, this resolution is about Syria and holding Assad accountable, but it's also about Iran and whether this Congress will make it more likely or less likely that that nation obtain nuclear weapons.
I haven't come to this decision lightly. I don't want to be in this position. None of us do. But we didn't put ourselves in this position. The president didn't put us -- ourselves in this position. Bashar al-Assad put us in this position when he chose to gas his own people.
Now, Secretary Kerry, a lot of people have come up to me and said that they're disgusted by what they see, but the question they ask is, why does America always need to be the world's policeman? So I ask you: Why should the U.S. lead this effort? And will we learn which are the 34 nations and organizations who have said they will support our action and how they are prepared to support it?