and spoke rather clearly and plainly, even far deeper than what he said publicly. And I'm, I suspect, like many of us, concerned that a neighbor of Iraq who, as far as I know-and maybe you're telling me something different-has not been helping Iraq-I understand they have been helpful. If that's not the case, you should clarify that. But this is rather serious. They live in the region. This isn't theory for the Saudis.

Secretary RICE. I've said that they have been very helpful in the runup to the referendum, in reaching out to the Sunnis, in reaching out to the tribes. The Saudis have the capacity to help mitigate against what they may see as negative trends. And that was my point, that the Saudis not just comment on them, but actually actively be involved. I see now, in our discussions with the Saudis, since Ambassador Jeffries was out there, as Ambassador Khalilzad was in discussions with them, a much more active Saudi role in trying to help the Iraqis solve some of their problems.

Clearly, one of the roles that the Saudis, and others, will need to play is that the United States has taken a large part of the initial burden, in terms of financial support for the Iraqi infrastructure, development for the training of the Iraqi security forces, and so forth. The region will have to be more supportive in that way, and I think they are prepared to be more supportive in that way. The other point that I would make is that Iraq needs political support. We have been working with the Arab League and with others to see if they will visit Iraq, if they will send trade missions to Iraq. Iraq needs to be integrated into the region and these are things that they can actively do, if they do, in fact, have concerns about the way things are going.

But when I talked to Saud al-Faisal, he was very clear to say that he had not intended to imply that our policies were hurtling Iraq toward disintegration.

Senator HAGEL. Would you, then-picking up on what you just said, some of the testimony you gave, and especially in light of what Senator Biden has talked about-support a United Nationssponsored Middle East regional security summit after the election of the Government of Iraq in December, to try to bring the partners in the Middle East together, with the United States taking a secondary role?

Secretary RICE. Well, the United States did not take the lead role at Brussels. In fact, the lead role at Brussels was the Iraqi Government.

Senator HAGEL. I'm not talking about Brussels. I'm asking you a question about: Would you support a U.N.-sponsored Middle East regional conference after the election? With the Middle East players at the table.

Secretary RICE. My view of these things, Senator, is that agenda is everything. And it is not that we have any problem with having people together to discuss the future of Iraq. We would want to make certain that any such agenda was, indeed, in line with the Iraqis' movement toward democracy, toward women's rights, and so forth.

Senator HAGEL. Well, I suspect it would be, but you don't have an answer for me on that.

Secretary RICE. I don't have a problem with the idea of an international conference. Indeed, a number of us have talked about a follow-on international conference of some kind to Brussels.

Senator HAGEL. May I ask

Secretary RICE. My only point, Senator, is we have to be careful to commit to something until we know what its agenda might be. Senator HAGEL. You may know that your Ambassador, Ambassador Bolton, answered a question about this yesterday regarding: Are we talking with the Secretary General of the United Nations about an accelerated, deepened U.N. role in Iraq after those elections? And he said that the current discussions were being held.

Secretary RICE. Yes, they are. About a deepened U.N. role, I discussed that, with Secretary General Annan yesterday, when I met him in New York, because we do want more U.N. organizations involved. The United Nations has been terrific in overseeing this referendum. They're going to be very involved in the elections. But they need to be more involved in the reconstruction and the life of the country, as well.

Senator HAGEL. You mentioned, in your testimony, the Syria/Iranian piece, and I think you said specifically in your testimony that the United States had begun taking new diplomatic steps to convey the seriousness of our concerns to Iran and Syria. Are we talking to Iran directly? How are we doing that? Can you explain what we're doing?

Secretary RICE. Well, in terms of Syria, you know that I was just recently in France and Great Britain and in Moscow. We talked about our concerns there. David Welch has recently been in the region, talking with countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia about our concerns. We've made them known to the Syrians publicly. We've also made them known through people. But this is a period of time in which the international community is deepening the isolation of Syria, for a number of reasons, including Resolution 1559 and questions concerning what might happen with the Melis Report. So, we want to be a part of a broader diplomatic effort, not to simply look at our own concerns.

Senator HAGEL. But what are we doing? You mentioned that we are doing-we're taking new steps, you say, diplomatic steps to convey the seriousness.

Secretary RICE. Well, for one thing

Senator HAGEL. Are we talking directly to Iran?

Secretary RICE. The trips involving Syria were a part of those new steps.

Now, with Iran, let me be very clear. We had, in Afghanistan, under U.N. auspices and under the "Six-plus-Two," direct discussions between Ambassador Khalilzad and his Iranian counterparts. That was in Afghanistan. We have considered whether contacts with Iran that are specifically related to Iraq might be useful between Ambassador Khalilzad and his counterpart on the same basis that we had them, essentially, in Afghanistan. We're considering whether that might be useful. But we don't lack channels to the Iranians.

Senator HAGEL. So, what are we doing differently, in this regard, from what we were doing 6 months ago to convey, as you say, the seriousness of our concern?

Secretary RICE. I think, for one thing, Senator, remember this was related both to Iran and to Syria-the conditions in which Syria is living have changed dramatically in the last 6 months. There is the deepening isolation of Syria regarding other matters, not just Iraq, the clear concerns of the Palestinians about the Palestinian camps in Lebanon, the clear concerns about the continued Syrian activity with Resolution 1559, is the context in which we can approach questions of our concerns.

Senator HAGEL. But wouldn't you say that also about Iran? They just elected a new President, they have a new government.

Secretary RICE. Unfortunately, I think their new President and their new government has looked as if it's going the other way. Senator HAGEL. So, how are we, then

Secretary RICE. The speech to the United Nations

Senator HAGEL [continuing]. Relaying our new concerns?

Secretary RICE [continuing]. Was hardly welcoming, Senator. In terms of Iran, we are continuing to use the multiple channels we have to Iran.

Senator HAGEL. So, we have a new strategy? A new way to do this?

Secretary RICE. What we have are new efforts, not new ways to do it, but new efforts, which means that we are turning up, if you will, the volume, diplomatically, on our concerns. We have really been more focused in the near term on our concerns about the Syrian border, because we think that there are things there that could be done forthwith that would have an almost immediate impact. And, again, the conditions now, and the conditions 6 months ago, concerning Syria are simply very different because of Syria's own diplomatic isolation.

Senator HAGEL. Do you think the Iranians have significant influence inside Iraq today?

Secretary RICE. I think the Iranians have influence inside of Iraq. But the one thing that I would note is that I have not seen any evidence that the Iraqis want to trade Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and tyranny for Iranian-style tyranny.

Senator HAGEL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Hagel.

Senator Dodd.

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know if Senator Sarbanes is-I guess he's not right here, so he'll be coming back shortly.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. My hope would be, by the way-let me echo the concerns raised by, I think the Senator Biden and Senator Sarbanes-we can't go this length of time again, quite candidly, from February, now, until mid-October, in having this kind of a public discussion about a policy that is draining our Treasury substantially. What is the number? I think somewhere between $4 and $6 billion a month, not to mention the lives that are being lost and soldiers being injured, as well as Iraqi citizens paying a price. This is just unacceptable, that we go this length of time without having a discussion about this subject matter in a public forum. So, I would hope that in the coming weeks and months, we can meet more frequently with you, Madam Secretary, in settings like this,

so that the American public have an opportunity to hear the kinds of questions and drawn-out discussion. If we're available for Meet the Press and Face the Nation and other such programs, we ought to be available to this committee to meet more frequently-over an extended period of time, if necessary. I regret you're only going to be here a couple of hours.

I was in Iraq last week, Madam Secretary, with Jack Reed, the Senator from Rhode Island, a member of the Armed Services Committee. And let me, first of all, say-which I think all of us agree with-and that is the incredible job that our military people are doing. I was impressed with them before I went, but even more so meeting the commanding officers there and the command structure, as well as the troops. They just do a fabulous job. And that's it's something we can't be unmindful for. They're doing their job.

I'm a little concerned-let me pick up with Senator Hagel's line of questioning. I have some others that I'd like to pursue with you in a minute, but I think he has an important line of questioning. While we were there, Qatar, going-before going to Iraq, there were news accounts about some military plans regarding Syria. Is there a White House Syrian group, for instance, that's meeting? Are we planning some action in Syrian that we ought to be aware of in this committee?

Secretary RICE. Senator, our policy toward Syria is on the table; we want a change in Syrian behavior, we want a change in Syrian behavior on the Iraqi border.

Senator DODD. I understand that

Secretary RICE. And we want a change in regards to Lebanon, and in regards to the Palestinian/Israeli border.

Senator DODD. Are we considering military action, if necessary? Secretary RICE. Senator, I'm not going to get into what the President's options might be, but the course on which we are now launched is a diplomatic course, vis-a-vis Syria. We are, of course, engaged in military operations up west, near al Qaim and the Euphrates area, in order to try and stem the flow of insurgents who are coming across the Syrian border.

Senator DODD. I understand all of that.

I'm talking about in Syria, now. You're not going to take the military option off the table in Syria, is that what you're telling me? Secretary RICE. Well, Senator, I don't think the President ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military force. But the course that we are currently on is a course to use our military power to try to stem the tide of people who are coming in that area, to clear some of those towns in which insurgents have been living, up in al Qaim, in that region, and to put pressure on the Syrians, diplomatically, to take steps that would make it easier to stem the flow of the insurgents. That's the course that we're on.

Senator DODD. What about Iran? What is their-to pursue the line of questioning further, there's been growing concern about militias in the south having closer ties with Iranians, in fact, not being supportive, the efforts, particularly by our British allies in Basra and places like that. You, sort of, painted a happy-talk pic

ture about how things are going here, and yet the reports we're receiving are that it's very troublesome what's occurring in the south. Secretary RICE. I think I haven't addressed the south, Senator. My only point was that the Iraqis show no interest in becoming tools of Iran, just as they've thrown off Saddam Hussein. In fact, there is considerable as you know-tension between Iranians and Iraqis, for a variety of historical and cultural reasons. Now, that doesn't mean that Iran is not a troubling presence in the south. It is a troubling presence in the south. It has its friends and allies there. Indeed, we've been concerned about support for militias and support for insurgencies.

The south is the British area. The British, of course, have diplomatic representation in Iran and can raise these issues with the Iranians directly. We have used channels that we do have with the Iranians. We are not without channels with the Iranians. We don't have a broad diplomatic engagement with the Iranians, but, of course, we have a Swiss channel, we have a channel that we've used in other places. And, as I said, we've even, on occasion, in Afghanistan, used the opportunity of the "Six plus Two," under U.N. auspices, to talk directly to the Iranians. So, we have channels to them. But the clear message should be to the Iranians from the international community, and I think it's coming not just from us, but from the neighbors, as well, that people expect the Iranians to behave as transparent neighbors, not as troublesome neighbors.

The best bulwark against Iranian influence in that region is going to be the continued stabilization of the south, and the continued evolution of the politics in the south away from sectarian policies.

Senator DODD. Well, again, the meetings we had in the regionthere's a great concern about what Iran's intentions are. And I want to underscore the point that Senator Hagel made. I hear you talking about the various contacts we have. I don't think any of us are suggesting full diplomatic relations with Iran at all, but if, in fact, politics and diplomacy are going to be the way in which we try and achieve our goals in Iraq and in the region, it seems to me that it's in our interest to try and find a way to successfully pursue the political and diplomatic track with Iran. As uncomfortable as it is, and our concerns about it, it seems to me that we're going to have greater results if we do that, and do it openly—at least not shy away from the notion that we're engaged in that process.

Secretary RICE. Senator, I believe that we can note that Ambassador Khalilzad has some flexibility, as he did in Afghanistan, to engage, through multilateral processes, his Iranian counterpart.

Senator DODD. Let me jump, if I can-I note in your statement here you had, on page 8 of your testimony, describing how much progress has been made in Iraq, and you talked about, "The security along the once-notorious Airport Road in Baghdad has measurably improved." Madam Secretary, I was there last week, and there's still-I was there a year and a half ago. I rode that road from the airport to the Green Zone. But Senator Reed and I were not at all allowed to travel that road, nor did we ask to do so. We were informed it was still rather dangerous to be traveling it here. My point in bringing this up is not just that particular point, but I think it's to be credible about how the situation is in Iraq. To sug