Mark Dubowitz

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

About

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.

Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg in Ynet News: “Why reassessing Israel’s risky relationship with China matters”

by

Why reassessing Israel’s risky relationship with China matters

Analysis: Beijing’s full-throated defense of the Islamic Republic should set off alarm bells for any Israeli who fears a nuclear-armed Iran with advanced ballistic and cruise missiles capable of bringing a second Holocaust.

Hebrew translation available here.

The following is an excerpt:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently called on the United Nations Security Council to reimpose, or “snapback,” international sanctions and restrictions on the Islamic Republic of Iran – a terror-sponsoring regime that seeks to wipe Israel off the map.

Just as the prime minister was speaking, another country was addressing the Security Council in defense of Iran: the People’s Republic of China.

Most Israelis would be shocked to learn this. According to a December 2019 Pew research poll, 66 percent of Israelis hold a favorable opinion of China against 25 percent who hold an unfavorable view.

As support for the Chinese Communist Party plummets worldwide, Israel is one of only nine countries where positive views of Beijing recently increased.

Sino-Israeli comity is particularly evident in the economic sphere: China accounts for roughly 10 to 15 percent of the Israeli economy. Sino-Israeli trade stood at $15.3 billion in 2018, an almost 4,400 percent increase in real dollar terms since 1995.

Admittedly, other American allies have strong ties to China. Chinese trade with Germany, for example, stood at $231 billion in 2018, an almost 2,000 percent increase in real dollar terms since 1992.

But trade hasn’t made Beijing popular in Deutschland. Only 34 percent of Germans, according to the same Pew poll, hold a favorable view of China compared to 56 percent that do not. This is one of the lowest favorability ratings for China in Europe.

[…]

Read Mark and Rich’s piece on the outlet’s website here or on FDD’s website here.

Read the Hebrew translation here.

Mark Dubowitz and Jonathan Schanzer in Newsweek: “Countering China Is for the BIRDs”

by

Countering China Is for the BIRDs

The following is an excerpt:

In 1950, as Cold War tensions were on the rise, President Harry Truman asked allies to stand and be counted. Israel reflexively stepped up and backed the president who bravely supported the creation of the Jewish state just two years before.

Seventy years later, new cold war tensions are stirring. This time, the adversary is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The White House is once again asking allies to step forward. Israel is expected to oblige. After all, America is its most important ally. But Jerusalem can’t afford to move too quickly, this time. Its financial stability is at stake.

It all began with Washington’s miscalculation that money would seduce the hard men of Beijing to become responsible global stakeholders. This notion dominated the thinking of U.S. foreign policy and business since President Richard Nixon and his national security consigliere Henry Kissinger began wooing China in 1972 in order to drive a wedge between China and the Soviet Union.

American money soon flowed east. China-U.S. investment and trade skyrocketed. By 2018, the economic relationship between Washington and Beijing topped $778 billion, an increase of roughly 4,750 percent in real dollar terms from 1980. The rest of the West followed. For example, Chinese trade with Germany stood at $231 billion in 2018, an almost 2,000 percent increase in real dollar terms since 1992.

However, after years of Chinese hacking, intellectual property theft and challenges to the American-led world order, Washington is coming to grips with what we might call “Nixon’s Nonstarter” or “Kissinger’s Collapse.” The Chinese Communist Party is not a responsible global stakeholder. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has turned his country into a wealthier, more belligerent authoritarian state.

[…]

Read Mark and Jonathan’s article for Newsweek on the outlet’s website here. 

Mark Dubowtiz and Behnam Ben Taleblu: “Two Years On, the Trump Administration’s Iran Policy Continues to Make Sense”

by

Two Years On, the Trump Administration’s Iran Policy Continues to Make Sense

The following is an excerpt of an FDD Insight piece by Mark and Behnam:

In the two years since the United States left the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Trump administration has adopted a policy of “maximum pressure” to address the full range of threats from the Islamic Republic. The administration’s objective is a better agreement that addresses the JCPOA’s fatal flaws. The way to secure such an agreement is to escalate all forms of pressure on the clerical regime until it faces a stark choice between its own survival and the abandonment of its nuclear ambitions, foreign aggression, and grave human rights violations.

From the beginning of his 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump insisted that the JCPOA was a bad deal. Rather than permanently blocking Iran’s pathway to nuclear weapons, the deal opens a patient path; if the JCPOA endures until its key provisions expire (or “sunset”), Tehran would emerge around 2025 with an industrial-scale nuclear program, a short path to a bomb, ballistic missiles to deliver that bomb, a conventional force newly equipped with foreign weapons, and its economy immunized against future sanctions.

The administration also dispensed with the fiction adopted by its predecessor that the nuclear agreement would moderate the mullahs by flooding them with cash and integrating them into the global economy. That theory of “moderation through economic seduction” failed miserably with the Chinese Communist Party and Vladimir Putin. The Islamic Republic has been at war with the United States for decades, murdering Americans and seeking to dominate the Middle East through its terrorist proxies. The JCPOA only super-charged such malign conduct by returning tens of billions of dollars for Tehran to fund its destructive activities. The Islamic Republic no longer had to make painful budgetary choices between guns for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF), Lebanese Hezbollah, and pro-Iran militias in Iraq, as opposed to butter for its citizens. Cash did little to transform the Islamic Republic’s leaders into more responsible global citizens or improve their treatment of the Iranian people.

[…]
Read Mark and Behnam’s FDD Insight on FDD’s website here.