State sponsor of terror: the global threat of Iran : hearing before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, first session, February 11, 2015.

The Iranians are the largest state sponsor of terror in the world. Iranian proxy groups like Hezbollah resource and execute attacks around the world. Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Quds Force troops personally support and engineer attacks on a global scale. In 2011, the Iranians plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States in Washington, DC. That plot was uncovered and stopped before it could be carried out. In Yemen, would-be rebels overthrew the government with the support of the regime in Tehran. Iran has long supported Houthis against Yemen's Sunni tribes. In Iraq, Iran is reenergizing Shia death squads to prop up the government in Baghdad. In neighboring Syria, Iran is even stronger. Iran virtually controls the Assad regime and helps the murderous dictator cling to power every day. Iran must be held accountable for its state sponsorship of acts of terror. It should not be given a pass just because it is in negotiations with us about its nuclear weapon program. All of these activities are part of Iran's plan to expand its influence and its stature and to spread its terror around the globe.

Thousands of people have died at the hands of terrorist groups who rely on state support for their activities. Iran and Syria are well known as sponsors of terrorism, while other countries, some with strong connections to the West, have enabled terrorist activity by turning a blind eye. Daniel Byman's hard-hitting and articulate book analyzes this phenomenon. Focusing primarily on sponsors from the Middle East and South Asia, it examines the different types of support that states provide, their motivations, and the impact of such sponsorship. The book also considers regimes that allow terrorists to raise money and recruit without providing active support. The experiences of Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Libya are detailed here, alongside the histories of radical groups such as al-Qaida and Hizballah. The book concludes by assessing why it is often difficult to force sponsors to cut ties to terrorist groups and suggesting ways in which it could be done better in the future.

Since the Vietnam War, the definition of traditional warfare has changed from the military action that was observed in previous wars such as the Korean War, and both World Wars. Traditional warfare included accepted rules of engagement, drawn battlefield lines, and other elements that were generally expected and anticipated during wartime. Currently, the United States is involved in an 'Overseas Contingency Operation' (OCO) previously known as the 'Global War on Terror' (GWOT), in which soldiers face not a Nation State, but a group of terrorists, who do not claim allegiance to any specific country. In addition to the threat of terrorists acting as individuals, as groups or as organizations, the United States is also dealing with State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST), who utilize terrorist groups to achieve their own political agenda. One method the United States Government uses to confront this challenge by is establishing and maintaining a running list of States that sponsor terrorism. Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan are currently on this list. The list, produced by the U.S. Department of x State, is designed to enable U.S. policy makers to enforce restrictions in the form of embargos and sanctions against State Sponsors of Terrorism as a method to punish States for providing such support. The U.S. Department of State defines SST as those who "repeatedly provide critical support for non-state terrorist groups, who without sponsorship, would have a much more difficult time obtaining the weapons, material, and safe areas to plan, train adherents, and conduct terrorist activities." Various definitions of State Sponsorship exist; however, fulfillment of a political goal remains the underlying constant. The list of State Sponsors highlights the fact that the U.S. views these nations as potential threats. Although knowing who supports terrorism is necessary, this dissertation seeks to provide a method for analyzing the characteristics of SST to provide an opportunity to gain further insight into the justifications why each nation supports terrorist activities. This dissertation will examine the techniques that Cuba and Iran implemented in order to sponsor terrorism for the purpose of globally exporting their own ideological revolution. While analyzing these techniques, the environment that fostered both Cuba and Iran to become leading State Sponsors of Terrorism will become apparent through the examination of the root causes of the Cuban and Iranian revolutions and the conditions that existed that paved the way for Castro and Khomeini to take power. By identifying and examining the phases of State Sponsored Terrorism, an understanding of the similar sponsorship techniques that both Cuba and Iran applied during their tenure as State Sponsors will develop, highlighting the commonalities within each, and the results of each phase. Through the study of these phases of terrorism, a pattern of exploitation emerges that will enable a stronger appreciation for the history of SST and a capability to conduct tread analysis that could better establish the prediction of future actions of similar State Sponsors. Terrorism threatens the lives of numerous innocent people on a daily basis. It is inherently successful because it fosters the fear that safety is never guaranteed; Americans learned that on September 11th as three planes collided into the World Trade Center and Pentagon and a fourth crashed en route to D.C. in Pennsylvania. State Sponsorship of Terrorism has greatly increased the lethality of terrorist acts which is why the United States has focused efforts on putting political and economic pressure on states that choose terrorism as a main component of it's foreign and domestic policy. These two states, Iran and Cuba, represent only two threats facing the United States; they have the strongest history in recent years of SST. The study of these states may shed light on how to develop a better predictive model of SST behavior benefiting the U.S. in developing policy for combating terrorism.

Iran is the most significant current threat to the United States, the Middle East, and the West. As the evidence demonstrating this threat mounts, one thing remains clear to Ilan Berman: 'Washington is woefully unprepared to deal with this mounting peril.' Berman's approach is hard-hitting, provocative, alarmist, and unflinchingly critical. But he takes the indictment of Iran one step further providing what has been missing so far in the foreign policy discourse regarding Iran_both within the U.S. government and outside it_policy prescriptions designed to contain Iran's strategic ambitions.

In 2015, Iran and six major world powers reached an agreement regarding its nuclear program. That deal was a result of a decade of tough U.S. and international sanctions placed on the Iranian regime because of its nuclear ambitions. The mullahs in Tehran felt the pain of sanctions. That is why they came to the negotiating table. The deal that the Obama administration brokered turns out to be seriously flawed. For starters, the deal simply put Iran's nuclear plans on hold for 10 to 15 years. After that time, Iran is free to develop a nuclear weapon. Even worse, the deal did not address Iran's continued sponsorship of terrorists with American blood on their hands. It also did nothing to curb the development of ballistic missiles. Iran gained immediate access to hundreds of billions of dollars, and the promise of yet more to come, due to the sanctions' relief. Only weeks after the announcement of the deal, reports indicated that Iran had significantly increased funding to Hezbollah and Hamas, both terrorist groups. Since the nuclear deal, Iran terrorist plots have been uncovered in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. In addition, since the announcement of the nuclear deal, Iran has conducted 14 ballistic missile tests. While they wait 10 years until they can develop a bomb, Iran is ensuring they have the technology to deliver that payload.