Mark Dubowitz

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

About

Mark and Jacob Nagel in Newsweek: “Despite U.S. Concessions, the IAEA Can Take Tehran to Task”

by

Despite U.S. Concessions, the IAEA Can Take Tehran to Task

The following is an excerpt:

Rafael Grossi, the director general of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is losing patience with Iran’s nuclear duplicity. Last week, he took Tehran to task for failing to explain uranium traces found in at least two sites during agency visits to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is a “big problem” that damages Iran’s credibility, Grossi explained. He demanded that the clerical regime immediately “come clean.” In an IAEA report released on Sunday, Grossi demanded full transparency from Iran in order for the agency to provide assurances of the peaceful nature of the country’s nuclear program.

Grossi’s announcement and the agency report come at a critical moment. The Biden administration is currently negotiating a return to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), with Iran in Vienna. But, as American diplomats tout the necessity of a JCPOA return, the U.N. nuclear chief made it clear that the agreement is outdated. The agreement does not address Tehran’s increased nuclear expertise or its development of advanced centrifuges. Nor does it address Iran’s nuclear weapons activities. In Grossi’s words, “You cannot put the genie back into the bottle.”

The Iranian strategy in Vienna is obvious: wield the threat of nuclear escalation to extort tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief and win tacit permission to forge ahead on nuclear R&D. Under a restored JCPOA, Tehran’s clerical regime will be legally allowed to install advanced centrifuges, build up its enrichment capabilities and wait for key restrictions to sunset over the next two to nine years. After 2030, none of the JCPOA’s prohibitions on the Islamic Republic’s ability to enrich massive uranium quantities to weapon-grade will still be in effect.

[…]

Read the full piece by Mark Dubowitz and Jacob Nagel on FDD’s website here and on Newsweek’s website here.

Mark and Jacob Nagel in Newsweek: “The Biden Administration’s Time for Choosing On Iran”

by

The Biden Administration’s Time for Choosing On Iran

The following is an excerpt:

Vienna is bustling with another round of diplomacy on the Iran nuclear file. Unlike the direct talks that resulted in the flawed 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), this time the American and Iranian sides are not engaging directly.

No matter the format, the end result is hard to escape: another bad deal. A diplomatic collapse is coming, based on a familiar but wrongheaded negotiating approach by American diplomats.

This coming collapse is not hard to understand. The Biden administration is imploring the Islamic Republic of Iran to return to compliance with the JCPOA—and the regime’s talented negotiating team is playing hard to get. The talks revolve primarily around what the West should pay the world’s most prolific state sponsor of terrorism for the privilege of re-entering a faulty nuclear agreement that in 2015 granted Iran everything it wanted—namely, a patient pathway to atomic weapons and massive economic relief.

Nuclear diplomacy is fine, but it must be shaped by American leverage.

[…]

Read the piece on FDD’s website here.

Mark and Reuel Gerecht in National Review: “Joe Biden Shouldn’t Return to the Iran Deal”

by

Joe Biden Shouldn’t Return to the Iran Deal

The following is an excerpt:

Although President Biden has demanded that Iran reenter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action before it receives economic relief, he will probably soon start green-lighting billions of dollars in assistance and lifting sanctions. Tehran will undoubtedly remain in violation of the atomic accord and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a signatory. Biden will do so for the same reason that Barack Obama repeatedly gave ground in negotiations with the Islamic Republic: fear of risking war or publicly conceding a nuke to the clerical regime. Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who has an autarkist streak and despises the United States, has been ratcheting up the pressure.

Tehran has increased the quantity and quality of its enriched uranium and started to construct and deploy advanced centrifuges faster than what the JCPOA allowed. The clerical regime is also preventing the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency from accessing Iran’s nuclear facilities, which is in violation of the NPT. And for the fourth time under the Biden administration, an Iran-guided Shiite militia has rocketed an American base in Iraq. The president responded to one of the attacks with a limited strike in Syria.

Khamenei has been point-blank — more so than he often is when he wants to give himself wiggle room: “We have no sense of urgency, we are in no rush to see the United States return to the JCPOA; this has never been a concern for us. . . . What is our entirely reasonable demand is the lifting of sanctions; this is the usurped right of the Iranian nation.”

[…]

Read the piece on FDD’s website here. 

Mark’s co-authored FDD Memo: “Biden, Congress Should Defend Terrorism Sanctions Imposed on Iran”

by

Biden, Congress Should Defend Terrorism Sanctions Imposed on Iran

The following is an excerpt:

During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing to consider Antony Blinken’s nomination for secretary of state, Blinken was asked whether he believed it is in America’s national security interest to lift terrorism sanctions currently imposed on Iran, including sanctions targeting Iran’s central bank, national oil company, financial sector, and energy sector. “I do not,” Blinken responded. “And I think there is nothing, as I see it, inconsistent with making sure that we are doing everything possible – including the toughest possible sanctions, to deal with Iranian support for terrorism.”

Bipartisan support for terrorism sanctions targeting Iran goes back to 1984, when the United States first designated the Islamic Republic as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. Since then, every U.S. president – Republican or Democrat – and Congress have taken steps to reaffirm U.S. policy opposing Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and tying sanctions relief to Iran’s cessation of terror-related activities.

President Joe Biden has pledged to rejoin the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), if Iran returns to “strict compliance” with the agreement. Terrorism sanctions on Iran, however, should not be lifted, even if the Biden administration opts to return to the deal, unless and until Iran verifiably halts its sponsorship of terrorism.

This memorandum provides an overview of Iran’s past and ongoing involvement in terrorism-related activities, a review of longstanding bipartisan congressional support for terrorism sanctions on Iran, and a list of terrorism sanctions currently imposed on Iran that should not be lifted.

[…]

Read the piece on FDD’s website here.

Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg in FDD’s Monograph: “From Trump to Biden: Iran”

by

From Trump to Biden: Iran

The following is an excerpt:

Over the last two years, the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign – an effort modeled on President Ronald Reagan’s “victory” strategy to defeat the Soviet Union – continued to drain financial resources from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and to squeeze Iran’s leaders to make a choice between regime survival and negotiations.

In 2019, President Trump established a U.S. policy to drive Iranian oil revenue to near-zero, imposed sanctions on Iran’s metal industries, and ordered the IRGC designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The Treasury Department designated the Central Bank of Iran and Iran’s National Development Fund for financing terrorism, while Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued a final rule declaring Iran’s financial sector a primary jurisdiction of money laundering concern.

In 2020, Trump imposed sanctions on Iran’s construction, manufacturing, mining, and textile sectors, while authorizing the Treasury Secretary to impose sanctions on any other sector of Iran’s economy. This authority was later used to blacklist the entire Iranian financial sector, including 18 banks that had not yet been subject to U.S. sanctions.

The administration also employed sanctions as a tool of political warfare, not just economic pressure. The president imposed sanctions on the supreme leader’s business empire, highlighting corruption at the very top of the Iranian regime. The administration also designated Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and noted the foreign ministry’s record of coordination with the IRGC. After the administration made a compelling case, the 39-member Financial Action Task Force called on global financial institutions to reimpose countermeasures on Iran’s financial sector due to the regime’s continued money laundering and terror finance activities – a significant blow to Iran’s efforts to legitimize itself within international fora.

Read the full essay here and the full monograph here.