Mark Dubowitz Interview on Fox News - November 26, 2016

The following is a transcript from an interview with Arthel Neville on Fox News with Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan policy institute.  Mark Dubowitz comments on the death of Fidel Castro and its implications on US foreign policy (November 26, 2016).

Arthel Neville:	From the Cold War to the War on Terror, the shadow of Fidel Castro felt over US foreign policy for nearly 60 years. He frustrated presidents of all stripes: Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, and liberals, but relations started softening during George W. Bush's administration and gained steam under President Obama. Here to talk about Castro's influence on American foreign policy, past and future, is Mark Dubowitz. He's the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Good to see you.
Mark Dubowitz:	Thanks, Arthel.
Arthel Neville:	All right, let's start here. In what ways has US foreign policy been dictated by Fidel Castro over the past 55 years? Will there be any real changes between now and 2016, when Raul Castro steps down? 2018?
Mark Dubowitz:	Well, Fidel Castro has been in power for over 50 years. He's bedeviled 10 US presidents from Eisenhower to George W. Bush, and in fact, he even snubbed Barack Obama when Obama restored diplomatic relations with Cuba and visited the island. He's been a thorn in the side of these presidents. He's ruled over Cuba, 90 miles from Florida. He's responsible for almost bringing the US and the Soviet Union to nuclear war in the early 1960s and he has inspired and supported revolutionary movements and terrorist organizations the world over, all united with one central organizing principle, and that is anti-Americanism.
Arthel Neville:	Yeah. As you mentioned, President Obama normalized US relations with Cuba last July, 2015. A year and some change later, critics say that has proven to be more symbolic. So, Mark, I ask you, do you think that once he gets in office, President Trump, can he bring about system changes that would better benefit the people of Cuba, and how might he do it?
Mark Dubowitz:	I think he could. The deal that Obama struck with Raul Castro unfortunately was a deal where most of the concessions were given to the Castro regime; very little concessions provided to the United States, and more importantly, the long-suffering Cuban dissidents who've been languishing in the prisons of Castro.
	Trump could come into office and he could keep the embargo lifted, or he could restore the embargo, or alternatively, he could use targeted sanctions, including human rights sanctions, to go after the Cuban military and the Cuban dictatorship that continues its oppressive ways.
Arthel Neville:	Right. Well, you would wonder if other presidents hadn't tried the same thing, but let's talk about the business part of this. How would those systemic changes in Cuba between the US in terms of the economy, but also not just that, Mark, the impression of this country as it is held by other leaders, how would that reflect?
Mark Dubowitz:	The problem with the deal that we struck with the Castro regime is that the Castro regime and the Cuban military are going to be the prime beneficiaries of any economic opening with the United States and with the rest of the world. You could restructure that kind of arrangement so that the economic benefits actually go to the Cuban people and you could combine that with tough financial and human rights sanctions against those who continue to oppress the Cuban people.
	I think that would be a fundamental shift in the Obama strategy and I think it would also be a signal to the rest of the world that we can't just believe because Castro is gone that Raul Castro and the Cuban military are going to usher in fundamental changes in the Cuban political structure and their relationship with the world. It is still a regime that continues to support terrorist organizations and revolutionary movements the world over.
Arthel Neville:	With that in mind, after Raul Castro steps down in 2018, can you foresee a democratic election to choose the president of Cuba?
Mark Dubowitz:	Well, I can't foresee it unless the United States and our allies does something to actually advance that. The problem is the Cuban regime is as dictatorial as it was under Fidel and the Cuban military continues to be as oppressive as it had ever been. It also continues to support revolutionary movements and dictatorial regimes all through Latin America, and so I think unless the United States under President-elect Trump, and then President Trump, actually begins to speak forcefully for civil liberties, for gay rights, for freedom in Cuba, my fear is that the lifting of the embargo is just going to fortify the regime under Castro, under Raul Castro, and his successors.
Arthel Neville:	But Donald Trump on the campaign trail did say that he wants to have religious freedoms for the people of Cuba, so he does seem to have a pretty strong stance on that, and, of course, he has so many of the expats living in Miami in President-elect Trump's ear as well.
Mark Dubowitz:	That's exactly right. To reinforce the importance of religious freedom, of sexual freedom, of human rights, and also the Cuban Americans who were forced out of that country. Their property was taken away; billions of dollars expropriated. Again, none of that was addressed in the deal that was struck between President Obama and Raul Castro. That's a deeply flawed deal that will need to be rectified, need to be renegotiated under President Trump.
Arthel Neville:	Do you think Trump can rectify that? Do you think he can do it?
Mark Dubowitz:	I think President Trump has said that he's a deal maker. He's going to re-examine a number of different agreements and treaties the United States has entered into and he's going to negotiate them on better terms, and I think this would be a good place to start.
Arthel Neville:	Okay. Mark Dubowitz. Thank you very much, Mark.
Mark Dubowitz:	Thanks, Arthel.

Mark Dubowitz - Interview on Fox News - September 9, 2016

The following is an excerpt from an interview on Fox News on September 9, 2016 with Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a non-profit, non-partisan policy institute located in Washington, D.C.

The interview begins with an excerpt from the testimony of Mark Dubowitz before Congress on September 8, 2016 followed by questions from Liz MacDonald at Fox News.

Mark Dubowitz:	In July, US officials estimated that Iran had repatriated quote, less than $20 billion from previously frozen overseas assets of $100-125 billion. Were those funds also repatriated in cash and gold? Was this in addition to the $11.9 billion? That could amount to a grand total of $33.6 billion. Did any of this money go through the formal financial system? If so, the administration is not being truthful about the $1.7 billion. If many billions of dollars arrived in Iran on pallets, this would be a pretty astounding revelation.
Liz MacDonald:	The numbers keep getting bigger. First it was $400 million, now $1.7 billion, now $33 billion. My next guest has testified before Congress yesterday about the money that Iran is getting. His foundation for Defense of Democracies. He's the executive director there. Mark Dubowitz joins me now. $33.6 billion in cash and gold. That's a lot. That's quite a difference, Mark.
Mark Dubowitz:	Liz, it's a big difference. The problem is, administration is just not coming clean on exactly how much money was sent to Iran in cash and potentially gold. We're just trying to piece together from what they have admitted in trying to establish a number. We've looked at the fact that they've admitted $11.9 billion was provided to Iran as part of the interim agreement. They claim that the Iranians have repatriated $20 billion. The Iranians are claiming that they've gotten $30 billion. There's the $1.7 billion that we know about that was delivered in cash. I'm saying worst case scenario here, the administration has green-lighted the transfer of about $33.6 billion. I don't think it'll be that high, but we're certainly talking many billions, not just 1.7.
Liz MaxDonald:	You know, Mark, you're really respected and you're held in high regard down on Capitol Hill. The Associated Press ... You're right, said back in July, Iran got up to $20 billion. It seemed like this is happening all along, even though the sanctions were in place. Doesn't this violate sanctions if the administration is giving Iran money? Isn't that against the law?
Mark Dubowitz:	It doesn't violate sanctions that the administration is green-lighting the transfer of money to Iran. What it does violate is decades of US practice to transfer this money in cash. We've gone out to the financial sector globally and we've said, "Look. You've got to comply with laws against money laundering, against terror financing, and we're going to impose billions of dollars worth of fines if you don't." We're trying to get the formal financial system to use formal channels, and then we turn around and green-light the transfer of cash to Iran. We all know, cash is used by drug cartels, and terrorists, and arms dealers. It's sending the wrong message.
Liz MacDonald:	Mark, you know, we already had the press secretary, Josh Earnest say that the $400 million certainly possible that it did go to nefarious activities, including terrorism in Iran. Basically, nefarious activities conducted by Iran, including terrorist activity, certainly Hezbollah. We also have a State Department official, he was pressed by reporters on the Iran payouts specifics. Let's listen.
Reporter:	We asked about the specifics of the payments in January, and were told that there was never, ever going to ... No one would ever tell us.
Mark Toner:	Well, again, what you got was our standard answer, which is true that we protect the confidentiality of these arrangements.
Reporter:
	From the communications piece alone, if you had it all to do over again, you'd do it exactly the same way, or was there a mistake made in this over-abundance of caution and this dribbling out of details?
Mark Toner:	I wouldn't call it a mistake ...
Liz MacDonald:	Would you call it a mistake, Mark?
Mark Dubowitz:	The administration is in a very strange position and they're trying to have it both ways. On one end they're saying, look there's a financial embargo on Iran, so the only choice that we had was to send the money in cash. That's true, and the only choice was to send the money in cash, then did they send the $30 plus billion in cash? Alternatively, if there are other ways to send the money, and that they actually sent all of that other sanctions relief to the formal financial system and not in cash, then why did they send the $1.7 billion in cash? The administration can't have it both ways. Either they basically ceded to Iranian demands, gave cash in a unique payment in order to get value in return, in this case I believe hostages, in which case it was a ransom, or the administration has been engaged in probably the biggest airlift of cash in the US history to a state sponsor of terrorism.
Liz MacDonald:	Mark Dubowitz, he's with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, testifying for Congress of more detail about the growing amounts given to Iran. Thank you Mark for your time. Appreciate it... For more:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubttVxWBoJs