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 and a member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, on Wednesday spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to highlight the failures of Trump’s maximum pressure campaign in Iran and explain why reaching a new nuclear agreement is critical to the security of the United States and our allies.

On the failed policy of four years of maximum pressure in Iran, Murphy said: “Not only did Iran not come to the table on everything, they came to the table on nothing. Their behavior in the region got much worse and much more adversarial to U.S. Interests. Just look at the reality on the ground, in a place like Lebanon, or Yemen or Iraq or Syria. At the end of Trump's term, did Iran have more or less influence in those places? Unquestionably more. More integrated with the Houthis. By the end of Trump's term they were in charge of the Lebanese government. There was less separation between the Iraqi power structure and Tehran. At the end of that four year period of time testing maximum pressure, Iran was more deeply involved with its proxies than ever before. They were not negotiating with the United States on any of the conditions that the Trump administration laid down for us. And they were shooting at us.

Murphy added: “And so I'm not sure why we have to do a lot of guessing now as to whether we're better off with or without a nuclear agreement with Iran. Because here's what we got from maximum pressure: American troops under fire, more support for proxies, no hopes of negotiation, and the icing on the cake, an Iranian nuclear program that is now weeks away from having enough fissile material to produce a nuclear weapon. Compare that with a year away during the time of the agreement.”

“We just see what [the Iranian government is] doing right now on the streets of Tehran, brutally repressing another wave of protests. We listen to what the [Iranian] President said on TV just this week, denying the Holocaust. These are our adversaries. This is our enemy. But all throughout American history we’ve understood that there are times when it makes sense to sit down across the table with your enemy and your adversary and engage in a diplomatic conversation that's good for you and good for the world,” Murphy concluded.

A full transcript of his remarks can be found below:

“Reserving the right to object, I have such respect for my colleague from Oklahoma. We’ve are often on the same side of issues related to matters of national security in the Middle East. But I disagree with his analysis that he's presented here today. Let me make just a remark or two about his immediate request and then make a few remarks about the broader work to try to protect the world from a nuclear weapons armed Iran.

“First, as I understand it, and I've just had a few days to take a look at the underlying legislation, it would significantly remove the administration's discretion to waive sanctions or to enter into certain oil sales or authorized business with Iranian financial institutions in that only a treaty entered into by the United States would provide that authority to the administration. I think that's generally bad policy.

“We can imagine we can imagine a whole set of diplomatic engagements with any nation including Iran, in which an executive may wish to toggle sanctions or licenses in order to provoke some behavior beneficial to the United States. That's in fact why we regularly build waivers into our sanctions statutes. And so to suggest that on Iran policy, the president is going to have no ability to impact sanctions or licenses until a treaty is entered into ties the administration’s hands - both Republican and Democratic administrations in a way that I simply don't think is helpful.

“I understand that my friend’s argument - he was not a supporter of the JCPOA and he does not desire for the United States to enter back into a nuclear agreement with Iran. And at the heart of this request, is the essence of President Trump's Iran policy. The idea that if we just keep hammering Iran with sanctions, that either their behavior will get better or they will, at some point, choose to come to the table and do a comprehensive deal: the nuclear program, their ballistic missile program, their support for terrorism.

“I think that was a credible argument back during the Obama administration. Many people said Obama shouldn't give Iran anything until Iran comes to the table on everything. This Congress went a different way. We ended up taking a vote that by our rules allowed for the nuclear agreement to go forward. But we now have the benefit of the opposition's argument to the JCPOA having been tested for four years.

“Trump basically took that philosophy - Keep sanctioning Iran. Don't worry about the fact that it's unilateral. And eventually Iran will come to the table on everything - he tested that for four years. And it was an unmitigated disaster, an unmitigated disaster.

“Not only did Iran not come to the table on everything, they came to the table on nothing. Their behavior in the region got much worse and much more adversarial to U.S. Interests. Just look at the reality on the ground, in a place like Lebanon, or Yemen or Iraq or Syria. At the end of Trump's term, did Iran have more or less influence in those places? Unquestionably more. More integrated with the Houthis. By the end of Trump's term they were in charge of the Lebanese government. There was less separation between the Iraqi power structure and Tehran.

“At the end of that four year period of time testing maximum pressure, Iran was more deeply involved with its proxies than ever before. They were not negotiating with the United States on any of the conditions that the Trump administration laid down for us. And they were shooting at us.

“Not a single attack on U.S. service members by Iranian proxies while the United States is in the JCPOA. Let me say it again: not a single attack on U.S. service members by Iranian proxies when the United States was in the JCPOA. They occur with regularity today. Attacks against U.S. forces housed in bases in Iraq and Syria restarted once we withdrew from the deal. In this year alone, there have been attacks in February, March, April, May, June, July, and August.

“And so I'm not sure why we have to do a lot of guessing now as to whether we're better off with or without a nuclear agreement with Iran. Because here's what we got from maximum pressure: American troops under fire, more support for proxies, no hopes of negotiation, and the icing on the cake, an Iranian nuclear program that is now weeks away from having enough fissile material to produce a nuclear weapon. Compare that with a year away during the time of the agreement.

“So we tested this theory that you just hit them with sanctions, him them with sanctions, and eventually they capitulate. It didn't work by I think, all objective measures it didn't work and so it makes sense that the Biden administration wants to engage and try to put back together a deal that was good for the United States and our allies.

“And lastly, I'll just say this. The senator from Oklahoma is right. The Iranians are bad people. We just see what [the Iranian government is] doing right now on the streets of Tehran, brutally repressing another wave of protests. We listen to what the [Iranian] President said on TV just this week, denying the Holocaust. These are our adversaries. This is our enemy. But all throughout American history we’ve understood that there are times when it makes sense to sit down across the table with your enemy and your adversary and engage in a diplomatic conversation that's good for you and good for the world.

“It is true if Iran was further away from a nuclear weapon, it'd be good for us and it'd be good for other countries, including Russia, which is why Russia is sometimes part of these negotiations. But I don't know that because something's good for everybody, it shouldn't be acceptable to the United States Congress.

“And so I'm going to object to this request because I believe that the JCPOA is the right thing for the security of this nation. Because I believe in diplomacy even with your adversaries. Because I think we have tested the proposition that maximum pressure will work better than a nuclear agreement and we now know the results. And I also believe that some of the details of this resolution ultimately bind the hands of American presidents in a way that probably isn't good precedent for the long term security of the nation.

“So again, I think my colleague comes to the to the floor with good faith objections and long standing objections. I come down in a different place and for that reason, I would object.”