Condensed Summary
🎯 Main Objective
- Ultimate U.S. Policy Goal: Not just halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions but bringing down the Islamic Republic of Iran through internal regime change, akin to Reagan’s Cold War strategy.
- Only Guarantee of Long-Term Peace: A new, free Iranian government is seen as the only way to permanently neutralize threats to Israel and U.S. interests.
🧨 Iran’s Nuclear Program
- 20-Year Threat: Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been a persistent issue; despite shifts in policy and sanctions, the threat remains unresolved.
- JCPOA Critique: The 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) is deemed fundamentally flawed for allowing uranium enrichment, enabling a future nuclear breakout, and lacking thorough verification.
- Trump’s Position: Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and imposed a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign. Dubowitz supports this approach, emphasizing a demand for full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.
📉 Iran’s Current State
- Weakened Regime: Due to Israeli military actions, U.S. pressure, and internal unrest, Iran is described as weaker than ever. Many Iranians (~80%) despise the regime.
- Popular Unrest Ignored: U.S. administrations, especially Obama (2009) and Biden (2022), missed opportunities to materially support Iranian protest movements.
🤝 Diplomacy vs Pressure
- Reagan Parallel: Dubowitz advocates for simultaneous pressure and support for dissidents as the most effective dual-track strategy.
- Iran vs. Palestine Comparison: Unlike Gaza, where public support for Hamas remains unclear, the Iranian population is widely believed to oppose the regime—making support for regime change more viable.
🇮🇱 U.S.-Israel Alignment
- Strategic Goals Align: Trump’s and Netanyahu’s goals to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capacity are aligned, but differ in timing—Israel might act sooner militarily, while Trump prefers diplomacy first.
- 2025 Timing: Critical juncture—restrictions from JCPOA would’ve expired. Without action, Iran could legally advance its nuclear program.
🌍 Global Risk & Proliferation
- ICBM Threat: Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is explicitly designed to reach the U.S., not just regional adversaries.
- Nuclear Domino Effect: A nuclear Iran could trigger proliferation across the Middle East (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt) and Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan).
🛠 Strategy & Leadership
- Negotiation Complexity: Real estate background (e.g., Steve Witkoff) not inherently disqualifying for diplomacy—success depends on surrounding oneself with technical experts.
- Leadership Philosophy at FDD: Build a mission-driven, nonpartisan team focused on action, not just analysis. Influence comes from offering serious, implementable policy solutions.
🔮 Outlook
- Optimistic Scenario (2030): Iran remains non-nuclear, and regime change has occurred due to continued pressure and support for dissidents.
- Pessimistic Scenario: U.S. policy falters, Iran waits out Trump, and becomes nuclear-armed with strengthened terror networks.
Condensed Transcript
David M. Cohen:
Tell us about your background.
Mark Dubowitz:
Born in Johannesburg, moved to Toronto. Worked in venture capital and high tech. After 9/11, I changed careers and joined FDD, which was newly founded by Cliff May.
David M. Cohen:
What did 9/11 mean to you?
Mark Dubowitz:
It was personal. I was furious at the global response blaming the U.S. It drove me to shift careers and join FDD.
David M. Cohen:
How did you rise within FDD?
Mark Dubowitz:
I’m part of a three-person leadership team. We’ve built FDD into a 100+ person institution focused on defending democracies.
David M. Cohen:
The Iran threat has persisted for decades. Why?
Mark Dubowitz:
Iran doesn’t have nukes yet because of U.S. and Israeli efforts—sanctions, sabotage, military action. Today, Iran is weaker than ever due to Israeli operations and internal unrest. 80% of Iranians oppose the regime.
David M. Cohen:
Was the 2009 Green Revolution a missed opportunity?
Mark Dubowitz:
Yes. Obama chose diplomacy over supporting protestors. He wrote to Khamenei instead of backing the people. It was a strategic error. Biden did the same in 2022—condemned the regime but offered no material support.
David M. Cohen:
Why did they avoid supporting the protests?
Mark Dubowitz:
To preserve nuclear negotiations. But supporting the people would’ve built leverage. The real goal should be ending the regime, not managing it.
David M. Cohen:
There’s a parallel with Israel and Gaza—pressure vs. negotiation.
Mark Dubowitz:
Somewhat, but most Iranians hate their regime. Not clear that most Palestinians oppose Hamas. Still, maximum pressure plus diplomacy is the right model.
David M. Cohen:
Were you surprised Trump wanted to negotiate with Iran?
Mark Dubowitz:
No. Trump wants a deal—but on the right terms: full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program. Unlike the JCPOA, which conceded enrichment and let restrictions sunset.
David M. Cohen:
If JCPOA had continued, where would we be now?
Mark Dubowitz:
Iran would have a legal, industrial-scale nuclear program and over $1 trillion in sanctions relief. Trump stopped that in 2018. Biden reversed course, leading to Iran’s nuclear acceleration.
David M. Cohen:
Are the U.S. and Israel aligned?
Mark Dubowitz:
Largely. Trump and Netanyahu both want to dismantle the program. Israel is more ready for military action; Trump wants to try negotiations first.
David M. Cohen:
Is the Trump plan just JCPOA 2.0?
Mark Dubowitz:
No. Early confusion existed, but Trump clarified: no enrichment, no reprocessing, and full dismantlement. That’s not JCPOA.
David M. Cohen:
Can any deal be trusted?
Mark Dubowitz:
Not fully, which is why infrastructure must be dismantled. Iran’s history of hidden sites shows it can’t be verified. Only a regime change guarantees security.
David M. Cohen:
Where will we be in 2030?
Mark Dubowitz:
Hopefully, Iran is non-nuclear and the regime is gone. But if we fail in 2025, Iran could be nuclear-armed and entrenched.
David M. Cohen:
Do Americans understand the threat?
Mark Dubowitz:
They despise the regime but don’t grasp how dangerous a nuclear Iran is. It would lead to nuclear proliferation across the Middle East and Asia, destabilizing both regions.
David M. Cohen:
What about appointing non-traditional negotiators like Steve Witkoff?
Mark Dubowitz:
Background matters less than results. Kushner was criticized but succeeded. Witkoff must rely on experts. Iran’s negotiators are highly experienced, so technical expertise is essential.
David M. Cohen:
What’s your leadership philosophy?
Mark Dubowitz:
FDD isn’t about individuals; it’s about mission-driven teams. Be nonpartisan, focus on action, and provide serious, implementable policy.
David M. Cohen:
Do you engage directly with policymakers?
Mark Dubowitz:
Yes. Relationships across administrations and Congress are essential. Influence comes from research and actionable ideas—not just access.
David M. Cohen:
You’ve been sanctioned by enemies. That’s a badge of honor?
Mark Dubowitz:
Yes. Sanctioned by Iran, Russia, China, blacklisted by others. Shows we’re making an impact.
David M. Cohen:
Something surprising about you?
Mark Dubowitz:
I’m much nicer than I appear on Twitter. Also, I love Iranian culture and believe a free Iran can be a prosperous ally.
David M. Cohen:
Who would you like to meet from history?
Mark Dubowitz:
Churchill—for his vision and courage. Also, the Shah of Iran—to understand what went wrong and what could’ve prevented the Islamic Republic.
David M. Cohen:
Thank you for your insights.
Mark Dubowitz:
Thank you, David. Appreciate the opportunity.
Share this post