Mark Dubowitz

The following is a transcript from a Fox News interview with Mark Dubowitz and Julie Banderas for America’s News Headquarters on the Fox News Channel on June 3, 2017.

Julie:  Defense Secretary Jim Mattis dialing up the pressure on North Korea, calling the rogue regime a “clear and present danger.” The Pentagon chief speaking at a security conference in Singapore where he also warned Beijing about its activities in the South Cina Sea. Let’s bring in Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Thank you very much for talking to us.

Mark Dubowitz:  Thank you.

Julie:  When we look at what the Defense Secretary is saying here, he’s essentially saying that they believe that China is in fact and they’re encouraged by China’s efforts to curb North Korea’s nuclear program, so that’s encouraging. Then, if you look at what China did on Friday by blocking tough new sanctions against North Korea, pushed by the United States and the UN Security Counsel, that doesn’t exactly sound like playing ball to me, so what say you?

Mark Dubowitz:  Well, Julie, the Trump administration is understandably doing what other administrations have tried to do in the past, which is bring the Chinese on board because they’ve got the most economic and political leverage North Korea. The concern of course is that China will break this administration heart the way it’s broken the way it’s broke in other administrations hearts and doing nothing, and effectively not using their leverage because at the end of the day the Chinese are more concerned about the collapse of the North Korean regime than they are concerned about a nuclear tipped ICBM in the hands of that regime.

Julie:   Do you think China’s putting enough pressure on North Korea?

Mark Dubowitz:  I don’t, I don’t. I mean, the Chinese could do far more. The Chinese are still a major trading partner with North Korea, the biggest trading partner with North Korea to the tune of about $60 billion, and they dwarf anybody else in the world in terms of economic engagement with this North Korea regime. We’ve got to put significant pressure on the Chinese, and we’ve got to shut down these illicit financial and economic networks that sustain the North Korean regime.

Julie:  Okay, so what then, and what do you make of the Pentagon’s chief warning? The chief is warning Beijing about its activities in the South China Sea.

Mark Dubowitz:  Well, absolutely. That’s important shot across the bow literally because the Chinese are trying to essentially militarize these islands in the South China Sea. We’ve got to send carrier groups to the South China Sea. We’ve got to underscore the freedom of maritime navigation, and we’ve got to send again a message to China that we’re not going to allow this aggressive activity to continue. It’s activity that got worse and worse under the Obama administrations.

Julie :   All right. Mark Dubowitz, we appreciate you coming on. Sorry we ha to cut it short. We have some news at the top of the hour. Thank you so you much.

The following is a transcript from a Fox News interview with Mark Dubowitz on May 19, 2017.

Julie Roginsky:  This is a Fox News alert. Iranians voting today in a tight presidential election where the country’s nuclear program looms large. President Hassan Rouhani facing a very serious challenge from hardliner Ebrahim Raisi. The Conservative candidate accuses the incumbent of failing to capitalize on the program, which was supposed to boost Iran’s economy.

Meanwhile, the U.S. announcing new sanctions over Tehran’s ballistic missile program. The sanctions targeting senior Iranian defense officials as well as a Chinese network accused of helping to fund the program. This comes as President Trump kicks off his very first overseas trip with a visit to Iran’s main rival in the region, Saudi Arabia.

Let’s bring in Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mark, thank you so much for talking to us. How big of a danger is the Iranian regime to American and our allies and will the outcome of this election really make any difference?

Mark Dubowitz:  Julie, the Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It’s got a nuclear infrastructure. Under this nuclear deal, it’s got a patient pathway to nuclear weapons and an ITBM. So think about North Korea, but with an economy that is going to be much more powerful and with a revolutionary ideology that is expansive and seeks at least domination in the Islamic world.

Julie Roginsky:  This election ultimately though has little effect. This is not like the United States and our politics on the Iranian regime considering the only person with real in Iran is the Supreme Leader. So how does that impact the Trump administration’s strategy then to get a successful nuclear deal if sanctions don’t work?

Mark Dubowitz:  Well, Julie, that’s exactly right. I mean, this is not a normal election. This is the sham election. It’s going to be a rigged election no matter which way it goes. It’s between two hardcore revolutionaries, Rouhani and Raisi, who are dedicated revolutionaries and are dedicated to imperialism abroad, repression at home and a nuclear weapons program. How it will affect the Trump administration’s policy is that they should ignore this presidential election. They should focus on the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, who really has all of the power and they need a comprehensive strategy to use all instruments of American power to subvert and roll back Iranian aggression.

Julie Roginsky:  Yeah. I mean, first of all the Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC, designates a defense official who facilitated the sale of explosives to Syria, what we just mentioned in the intro there. Talk about Syria and Iran and the relationship there. After President Trump delivered U.S. airstrikes, obviously delivering a very strong bold message to the Assad regime. What does he do to send a similar message to Iran and China, by the way, considering that China based network was also designated by OFAC for supporting Iran’s military by supplying millions of dollars worth of missile applicable items?

Mark Dubowitz:  That’s exactly right, Julie. In fact, that Iranian defense official who was designated was designated for supplying not just explosives, but actually was supporting the very research center in Syria responsible for the chemical weapons attacks on Syria’s people. So what the Trump administration needs to do is continue to do what they’re doing, which is a much more muscular policy where they recognize that the Assad regime is a close Iranian ally. It is not an ally in the war against ISIS. And that they need to roll back Iranian aggression in Syria, in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Yemen, and they need a government approach to do that country by country in order to subvert Iranian power.

Julie Roginsky:  All right. Mark Dubowitz, great to see you. Thank you so much.

Mark Dubowitz:  Thanks, Julie.

The following is a transcript from FOX NEWS Happening Now segment on December 29, 2016 with Mark Dubowitz, Executive Director – Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Host:  Right now, new fallout from an escalating battle between the US and our key ally in the Mideast, after Secretary of State Kerry slammed Israel and the Netanyahu government. In a speech you heard right here on Happening Now yesterday, Kerry pushed for a two state solution and defended the US decision to abstain from a security council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. Prime Minister Netanyahu firing right back, saying Israel doesn’t need a lecture on peace from foreign leaders. Joining us now is Mark Dubowitz. He is executive director for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Thank you so much for joining us.

Mark Dubowitz:  Thank you.

Host:  It seems like the Obama administration has a checklist of things they’re doing on the way out the door, and this was one of them. It felt like lighting fire to this situation. A lot of people viewed it that way. Do you think the goal of this is … Some have speculated the tense relationship between President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu, even leaving a mess for Donald Trump. Is it about his sincere approach to the Middle East and the idea that the West has become too much of a focus?

Mark Dubowitz:  I think John Kerry and Barack Obama do sincerely believe that they’re right in pushing Israel in this direction. I think, unfortunately, their view is not shared by most Americans who understand that Israel is a loyal ally of the United States under attack by radical Islamists and anti-American Arab rejectionists. Israel is fighting the same enemies we’re fighting, and that this last minute stab in the back is not something that is going to help give Israelis the confidence to take the steps for peace that everybody believes will one day be necessary.

Host:  If the goal was to find peace, it seems like a lot of what was achieved by this speech, though, was antagonizing Benjamin Netanyahu and sending him further into the arms of Donald Trump, who comes in next, who immediately tweeted about it. They have this relationship. In a way, it seems like it may backfire on what the administration’s intention was. Your thoughts on that.

Mark Dubowitz:  I think it’s absolutely going to backfire. I think what Donald Trump understands, what Barack Obama doesn’t understand, is that the only way that you’re going to get the Israelis to, once again, give up land, because every time they give up land, that land gets filled by the most radical Islamists forces with thousands of missiles aimed at their cities. The only way they’re going to take another risk and give up land for peace is if they believe the United States has their back. Barack Obama has not had Israel’s back for eight years. In fact, he’s done everything possible to undermine, not just the Israeli Prime Minister, but the Israeli State and the Israeli people. I think Donald Trump understands that. If there is no daylight between the United States and Israel, Israel’s leaders may be more prepared to take these enormous risks for peace that everybody is demanding.

Host:  One of the assertions that was made yesterday by Secretary Kerry was this idea that in a one state solution, Israel can’t be both a Jewish state and a democracy. Do you accept that?

Mark Dubowitz:  Look. I think everybody believes that there needs to be a two state solution. I think that the United States should not be supporting the creation of a second state that will be a terrorist state, that will be a corrupt state, that will be anti-American, and that will further add to the enormous instability and crisis in the Middle East. You can be a strong believer in a two state solution, but you’ve got to be a strong believer in a state that is liberal, and that is democratic, and that is transparent, and that it treats its own people right, and treats its neighbors right. I think that is the overwhelming consensus in the United States, both democrats and republicans. You saw the reaction from leaders in congress on both sides of the aisle, who reject the Barack Obama, John Kerry vision of what it takes to get peace.

Host:  As both sides have made their case in the past 24 hours, some people have started to wonder: Maybe the two state solution isn’t the best solution, given the reasons on both sides for why it’s not working so far. What do you think about that? Do you believe a two state solution is the best solution?

Mark Dubowitz:  Look. I do think a two state solution is the best solution. I think it’s a plausible solution, but not now. Not until the Palestinians end their incitement, end their terrorism, end firing missiles into Israeli cities, end the knifing and car attacks. They cannot get a state on the basis of terrorism and the murder of other people’s children. I just think that’s not something the United States should support and can support. I think that if the Palestinians finally, after decades and decades of rejecting Israeli peace offers finally come to the table and negotiate bilaterally in agreement with the Israelis that gives Israel security, then the Palestinians can get an independent state. But, not until then.

Host:  Mark Dubowitz. Thanks for joining us. Appreciate your time.

Mark Dubowitz:  Thanks for having me.

 

Last week, my colleagues Emanuele Ottolenghi, Saeed Ghasseminejad, Annie Fixler and Amir Toumaj at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies released a report detailing the expansive role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the Iranian economy. With the lifting of sanctions under last summer’s nuclear agreement, the IRGC is set to be a primary beneficiary of the sanctions relief windfall.

The new report, “How the Nuclear Deal Enriches Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps,” offers a sector-by-sector analysis of the major industries of the Iranian economy and demonstrates that the IRGC owns major companies and exercises significant influence over others. Even though the IRGC remains sanctioned, because the nuclear agreement lifts sanctions on the very sectors in which the Revolutionary Guard is most active, the organization will benefit from the economic opening.

This should be a serious concern for policymakers because the IRGC is involved in all of Iran’s nefarious activities – its support for terrorism, regional aggression, cyberattacks against the US and its allies, and human rights abuses. The report explains further that the IRGC uses its economic activities to generate revenue to finance military operations, and its private sector ventures offer a network to procure nuclear and missile technology under the guise of industrial equipment.

The authors provide more than a dozen recommendations for the government to combat Iran’s malign activities and undermine the economic power of the IRGC. If Congress and the next administration do not use a combination of sanctions and other coercive tools to counter the IRGC’s malign activities, we can expect an even more violent Middle East.

You can read the full and download the full report here.

Article by Mark Dubowitz, Annie Fixler

14th July 2016 – FDD Press

As we mark the one-year anniversary of the announcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), it is worth recalling why this deal is fatally flawed. The JCPOA provides Iran with a patient pathway to nuclear weapons capability by placing limited, temporary, and reversible constraints on Iran’s nuclear activities. These nuclear “sunset provisions,” which begin to expire in eight years and mostly disappear over a period of ten to fifteen years, leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power with an industrial-size, uranium enrichment and plutonium program; near-zero nuclear breakout capacity; an advanced centrifuge-powered clandestine sneakout capability; advanced ballistic missile and ICBM programs; access to advanced heavy weaponry; greater regional hegemony; and a more powerful economy that could be immune to Western sanctions. Even as Iran temporarily scaled back some of its nuclear activities under the JCPOA, the regime’s illicit effort to obtain proliferation-related technology continues while its other non-nuclear malign activities are expanding.

The deal (as well as the interim agreement in place during the negotiations) provided Iran with substantial economic relief that helped the regime avoid a severe economic crisis and return to a modest recovery path. The lifting of restrictions on Iran’s use of frozen overseas assets of about $100 billion gave Tehran badly needed hard currency to settle its outstanding debts, begin to repair its economy, build up its diminished foreign exchange reserves, and ease a budgetary crisis, which in turn freed up funds for the financing of terrorism.

The nuclear deal also did nothing to address the full range of Iran’s illicit activities, including ballistic missile development, support for terrorism, regional destabilization, and human rights abuses. Indeed, the weakening of missile language in the key UN Security Council Resolution and the lifting of a conventional arms embargo after five years, and the missile embargo after eight years, undermine international efforts to combat Iran’s illicit activities.

During last summer’s congressional review period, Obama administration officials pledged that the United States would continue to enforce non-nuclear sanctions and oppose all of Iran’s dangerous activities. However, many of us raised concerns that Iran would view any imposition of sanctions as a violation of the deal and grounds to “snap back” its nuclear program,  and that those threats would in effect prevent Washington from imposing new non-nuclear sanctions. This is what we called Iran’s “nuclear snapback.”

In fear of the nuclear snapback, the Obama administration has missed numerous opportunities since the conclusion of the JPCOA to push back against Iran’s malign activities, including support for terrorism, human rights abuses, and other destabilizing activities in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and other countries across the Middle East. Iran also has tested nuclear-capable ballistic missiles seven times since July 2015 in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.  Yet, the administration has only issued a handful of new designations,  including an ineffectual targeting of Iran’s missile procurement networks. Tehran can easily reconstitute these networks, and the designations do not impose the kind of economic costs needed to change Tehran’s strategic calculus.

In the past weeks, reports revealed Iran’s ongoing attempts to illegally procure nuclear and ballistic missile technology and raw materials.  This activity violated UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (in place prior to January 2016), it violates UN Security Council Resolution 2231, and it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the JCPOA. In its annual report released at the end of June, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency found that Iran engaged in a “quantitatively high level” of attempts to acquire nuclear and missile technology and equipment.  German states also released their own intelligence reports, and multiple reports noted that Iran attempted to procure goods and technology relevant to “atomic, biological, and chemical weapons” and “nuclear and missile delivery programs.”  In its coverage of these reports, The Wall Street Journal spoke with two German intelligence officers who stated that Iran’s illegal procurement efforts continued in 2016 – well after Implementation Day (January 16, 2016).  If these 2016 activities included nuclear goods and technologies, Iran would be in violation of its JCPOA obligations; for missile-related technologies, Tehran would be in violation of UNSCR 2231.

The Obama administration and its European allies have not imposed meaningful sanctions or punished Iran for its illicit activities. In fact, nuclear experts at the Institute for Science and International Security found that over the past two years, “The Obama administration has inhibited federal investigations and prosecutions of alleged Iranian illegal procurement efforts.”

The Obama administration also has failed to enforce human rights sanctions against Iran. Since the JCPOA was concluded last summer, the administration has designated no individuals or entities for human rights abuses, and has issued only three designations since Hassan Rouhani took power in the summer of 2013.  Meanwhile, Iran continues to hold hostage U.S., Canadian, and British dual nationals Bagher and Siamak Namazi, Homa Hoodfar, and Nazanin Ratcliffe as well as Nizar Zakka, a Lebanese citizen and U.S. permanent resident as well as many other individuals. This is unacceptable and inexcusable. They must be released unconditionally and immediately.

As international businesses re-enter the Iranian market, the regime continues to oppress its citizens and deny their basic human rights. The regime seems to hope that the promise of profits will blind the international community to Iran’s vast system of domestic repression.

Those of us who were critical of the deal also raised concerns that Iran would view the JCPOA not as the end of the negotiations, but as the beginning, and demand ever-greater sanctions relief, as we have indeed seen.  We have witnessed the Iranian government’s full-court press to persuade the United States to green-light Iran’s access to U.S. dollar transactions.  This significant and unilateral concession to Iran would go beyond the sanctions relief promised by the nuclear agreement,  and seemed to be under active consideration by the State Department before congressional pressure stopped it (for now).  Iran has pressured the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to remove it from its financial “blacklist.” While FATF recently refused to do so, it did suspend mandatory counter-measures against Iran for one year and opened up the possibility for future changes in the not-too-distant future.  Iran is also seeking membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and enjoys the backing of some European countries. WTO membership for Iran could severely curtail Washington’s future ability to use financial and economic sanctions.

Statements by administration officials such as Secretary of State John Kerry that it is America’s responsibility to ensure that Iran “get[s] the benefits that they are supposed to get”  are very problematic. The administration is allowing Iran to hold the U.S. responsible for delivering financial and economic outcomes, and for providing ever-greater sanctions relief in order to persuade Iran to keep to the JCPOA. This is not good policy. Instead, Congress should ensure that the onus is placed on Iran. If Tehran wants more sanctions relief and wants to encourage multinational companies to enter the Iranian market, it must change its dangerous behavior.

The JCPOA lifts sanctions on Iran’s nuclear activities, but it does not preclude the United States from using non-nuclear sanctions – despite statements from Iran that it will view any imposition of sanctions as a violation of the deal and grounds to “snapback” its nuclear program.  Congress should reject that Iranian position – which amounts to a form of nuclear blackmail – and hold the administration accountable for its commitments to “oppose Iran’s destabilizing policies with every national security tool available.”  Sanctions need to be imposed to target Iran’s support for terrorism, ballistic missile program, support for the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria and designated Shiite militias in Iraq, and human rights abuses. These steps are not a violation of the JCPOA, but rather an affirmation of the stated U.S. policy. Specifically, we recommend that Congress consider taking the following steps:

1. Protect the integrity of the U.S. dollar from Iranian illicit finance.

2. Reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act, an important foundation of the sanctions architecture.

3. Counter the narrative that Iran is a responsible financial actor.

4. Strengthen sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) by designating it for terrorism and expanding non-proliferation sanctions and designations.

5. Require updated reporting on IRGC penetration in sectors of the Iranian economy, along with reporting and sanctions on the sectors involved in Iran’s ballistic missile development.

6. Require the U.S. Treasury to designate companies with IRGC or Ministry of Defense beneficial ownership.

7. Require the U.S. Treasury to create an IRGC Watch List.

8. Require reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding any transactions with IRGC Watch List companies or in sectors connected to Iran’s ballistic missile program.

9. Insist on robust investigation into illicit procurement and outstanding concerns about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.

10. Expand human rights sanctions by imposing sanctions on Iranian state organs responsible for institutionalized human rights abuses and by linking sanctions concessions to improvements in human rights conditions.

11. Target corruption and kleptocracy for reasons related to terrorism and human rights issues.

12. Require reporting on U.S. citizens and other dual-nationals held hostage in Iran.

13. Require reporting on and expand sanctions against Iran’s support for the Assad regime and IRGC activities in Syria.

14. Require presidential certification that commercial planes are only being used for civil aviation end-use before authorizing the sale of any aircraft to Iran.

15. Prohibit any U.S. financial institution, including the Export-Import Bank, from financing any trade with Tehran while Iran remains a state sponsor of terrorism.

16. Require reporting on the use of foreign airports and seaports by sanctioned Iranian entities.

America needs a comprehensive strategy deploying all of the coercive tools of statecraft to push back against the full range of Iran’s malign activities. If Washington does not confront these activities now and at every turn, in ten to fifteen years, we may face a situation in which the president has insufficient leverage to respond to an expanding Iranian military-nuclear program, regional aggression, and global terrorism. The U.S. may have only military force left to respond to Iran’s nuclear and other dangerous activities – at which time, the Iranian regime will be stronger, and the consequences of such military action likely will be severe.

– See more at: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/dubowitz-fixler-fatal-flaws-after-one-year/#sthash.DvshXjl9.dpuf