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 Tuesday chaired a subcommittee hearing on U.S. security assistance in the Middle East with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Regional Affairs Mira Resnick and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense for the Middle East Dana Stroul. Murphy focused on whether our arms sales and other security assistance further U.S. policy goals in the region.

“Over the last 75 years, the majority of U.S. arms sales worldwide have gone to the Middle East, totaling more than $379 billion in sales. That is a lot of weapons into a very combustible part of the world. Arms sales and other forms of security assistance are an important foreign policy tool for the United States to use to exercise its influence abroad. And as with any foreign policy tool, it’s important to continually re-evaluate whether that tool is actually achieving its desired policy goals,” Murphy said.

Murphy continued: “…[E]ven as the foundations of our interests have changed in the Middle East, our security assistance continues to flow unabated into a region that is increasingly unstable. And the post-9/11 global War on Terror has dramatically expanded security assistance programs around the world, including the Middle East, with relatively little debate or oversight.”

“Now, there are plenty of good reasons, as I said, to have robust security partnerships in the Middle East, including supporting our allies and countering legitimate threats from Iran, its proxies, and non-state actors. But, there is always enormous pressure from both our partners in the region, and the Defense Industrial Complex in Washington to do more without any corresponding pressure to examine whether these sales are actually advancing our interests or actually make Americans safer,” Murphy said.

Murphy then went on to challenge the following basic assumptions: (1) Security assistance makes U.S. partners better able to protect U.S. interests in the Middle East; (2) If we don’t sell them weapons, they’ll turn to China or Russia; and (3) Close military relationships with these countries incentivizes these nations to become more respectful of international norms like civilian military and respect for human rights.

Murphy said: “I don’t think the U.S. should pull out of its security relationships in the region. It can be a really effective tool…But some of the resources that we provide to the region today are––I would argue mismatched––to our national security interests. And hopefully, that is what we will talk about today.”

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

“Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to bring this subcommittee together today for a hearing on a very important and timely topic—U.S. security assistance in the Middle East. We have votes at around 11:00 today—I imagine the first vote will be held open for a while—and so we will continue this hearing through the beginning of votes. And so, other colleagues I believe will be joining us.

“Over the last 75 years, the majority of U.S. arms sales worldwide have gone to the Middle East, totaling more than $379 billion in sales. That is a lot of weapons into a very combustible part of the world. Arms sales and other forms of security assistance are an important foreign policy tool for the United States to use to exercise its influence abroad. And as with any foreign policy tool, it’s important to continually re-evaluate whether that tool is actually achieving its desired policy goals.

“When the Cold War began as a means to counteract Soviet expansion, we got into the business of supporting authoritarian regimes all over the world. In the Middle East, we often relied on arms sales to cement these relationships.

“We also needed access to Middle East oil and this drove our security policy there as well. We wanted oil from the region. Many of those nations wanted our weapons. But it is not the 1970s any longer. The Soviets and the Arab nationalists are gone. Back then, the United States imported 29 percent of its oil from the Gulf. Today, that number is just 12 percent and declining.

“Yet even as the foundations of our interests have changed in the Middle East, our security assistance continues to flow unabated into a region that is increasingly unstable. And the post-9/11 global War on Terror has dramatically expanded security assistance programs around the world, including the Middle East, with relatively little debate or oversight.

“Now, there are plenty of good reasons as I said to have robust security partnerships in the Middle East, including supporting our ally Israel and countering legitimate threats from Iran, its proxies, and non-state actors. But, there is always enormous pressure from both our partners in the region, and the Defense Industrial Complex in Washington to do more without any corresponding pressure to examine whether these sales are actually advancing our interests or actually make Americans safer. So today, I’d like to more closely examine some basic assumptions with our witnesses.

“The first assumption is this: ‘Security assistance makes U.S. partners better able to protect U.S. interests in the Middle East.’ Has it? We’ve invested more than $50 billion in Egypt’s army over the past 40 years. They did provide support to us in the Gulf War in 1991, but recently that army has been focused more on internal repression than on regional security. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are capable of projecting military power beyond their border in a way that they weren’t decades ago, but they often do so in ways that are contrary to U.S. interest—as we have seen in Yemen and Libya.

“The second assumption: ‘If we don’t sell them weapons, they’ll turn to China or Russia.’ Well, the U.S. is the partner of choice not only because so much of our equipment is just far superior to anything the Russians or Chinese can sell, but also for long-term training, maintenance, and security cooperation that comes with those sales. It's time to ask whether the threat that less arms from the U.S. will cause our partners to simply abandon us and turn to Russia or China—whether that [is a] threat or whether it's just a red herring.

“And finally the third assumption: ‘Close military relationships with these countries bring them into the club. It helps professionalize them, incentivizes these nations to become more respectful of international norms like civilian [control of the] military and respect for human rights.’ As we know, by and large, this has not happened. Bahrain is more repressive than it was 10 years ago. The Saudi regime’s crackdown on political speech is getting worse, not better. Egypt has 60,000 political prisoners in its jails.

“Now, I’m not arguing for a bright line. I never have. I don’t think the U.S. should pull out of its security relationships in the region. It can be a really effective tool. Our aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces has been vital amid significant political and economic turmoil in the country. The UAE special forces are valuable counterterrorism partners. Aid to Jordan helped secure the country’s borders with Syria and Iraq when the ISIS caliphate was at its peak.

“But some of the resources that we provide to the region today are––I would argue––mismatched to our national security interests. And hopefully, that is what we will talk about today. I would also make the argument that the weight we put on security interests and security assistance crowds out our ability to offer other, often much more effective aid. As I said, I support continued funding for the Lebanese Army, but honestly that country is suffering from an economic and political crisis right now not a security crisis, but the bulk of the things that we have to offer Lebanon are more weapons.

“So, again, the purpose of the hearing today is to have an honest conversation and a realistic assessment of today’s security threats in the Middle East and how we need to update our security assistance posture to best meet those threats.

“With that, let me turn to the Ranking Member for his opening remarks.”

###