Will This Billionaire-Funded Think Tank Get Its War With Iran?
By James W. Carden* – The
The Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies’ militaristic influence on US policy toward Iran is
working. Suleimani’s assassination is evidence of that.
the following scenario: A Washington, DC–based, tax-exempt organization that
bills itself as a think tank dedicated to the enhancement of a foreign
country’s reputation within the United States, funded by billionaires closely
aligned with said foreign country, has one of its high-ranking operatives
(often referred to as “fellows”) embedded within the White House national
security staff in order to further the oft-stated agenda of his home
organization, which, as it happens, is also paying his salary during his
year-long stint there.
As it happens, this is exactly what the pro-Israel think
tank the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) reportedly achieved in
an arrangement brokered by former Trump national security adviser John Bolton.
The FDD senior adviser on the National Security Council was
Richard Goldberg. And the think tank, the FDD, funded by prominent American
billionaires such as the financier Paul Singer and Home Depot magnate Bernard
Marcus, has relentlessly pushed for a recklessly militaristic US policy against
Iran and in the Middle East generally.
Why does this matter?
On Friday, January 3, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, head of
Iran’s Quds Force, the foreign arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps,
and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation
Forces, an Iran-backed Iraqi paramilitary unit, and eight others were killed in
a missile attack carried out by the US military at Baghdad International
In a statement after the attack, the Pentagon claimed,
without evidence, that Suleimani “was actively developing plans to attack
American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” and
that the “strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made the rounds on the Sunday
talk shows echoing the administration’s party line.
On social media, Trump’s decision to assassinate Suleimani
and al-Muhandis was greeted with praise from the FDD, which gloated,
via Twitter, that Iran “thought he [Trump] was a Twitter tiger; he’s proven
otherwise.” FDD CEO Mark Dubowitz wrote that he believes
that the death of Suleimani is “more consequential than the killing of [Osama]
And this brings us to the FDD and its arrangement with
Trump’s National Security Council (NSC). Shortly after the air strikes in
Baghdad, Bloomberg News reported that a senior adviser at the FDD, Richard
Goldberg, would be returning to the FDD after serving on the NSC for the past
According to Bloomberg News’ Nick Wadhams, Goldberg’s
position was created by former national security Adviser John Bolton in order
to “counter what Bolton saw as a desire at the Departments of State and Treasury
to weaken the ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Iran.” Wadhams notes that the
FDD continued to pay Goldberg’s salary while he was on staff at the NSC.
The Quincy Institute’s Eli Clifton, who has long expertise
in tracking the FDD’s money trail, tells me the FDD/NSC arrangement “confirms
the widely shared understanding in Washington that FDD is working hand in glove
with the administration in shaping and implementing Iran policy.”
Clifton added that such an arrangement “raises serious
questions since it appears an NSC staffer was being paid by an organization
that, according to its application for tax-exempt status, was
founded to enhance the image of a foreign country, Israel.”
Still worse, the ties between the administration and the FDD
highlight what Clifton describes as a “feedback loop” with regard to money and
policy influence. According to Clifton, one-third of the FDD’s budget is
provided by the billionaire Marcus, a Trump campaign donor, who is on record in comparing Iran to “the devil.” And while Goldberg
was working for Trump’s NSC, his colleagues in the FDD’s Iran Program were busy
tweeting out conspiracy theories about Minnesota Representative Ilhan
Some have disputed the FDD’s influence on administration
policy, particularly—no surprise here—the FDD and its friends in the
establishment media. Over at The Atlantic magazine, staff writer Kathy Gilsinan
penned a sympathetic profile of the FDD’s Dubowitz in which she
claimed that The Nation and The New York Times have “exaggerated the think
tank’s real influence and fed conspiracy theories overseas.”
Such is perhaps to be expected from The Atlantic, which is
owned and operated, respectively, by the stalwart neoconservatives David
Bradley and Jeffrey Goldberg, and has published several pieces of pro-war agitprop
from former CIA operative turned FDD Senior Fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht.
The events of the past week show, if anything, that the FDD
wields far more influence than previously had been thought.
That tax-exempt neoconservative outfits like the FDD
continue to exercise outsized influence on US foreign policy is a scandal and
one which, in light of the events of the past week, deserves a congressional
Juan Cole: U.S.-Iran Conflict Enters
Unprecedented Territory with Assassinations & Military Attacks
Amy Goodman – Democracy Now! (*)
missile strikes on bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops, following the U.S.
assassination of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, have dramatically raised
tensions in the Middle East. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei called
the missile strike a “slap in the face” of the Americans and called for U.S.
troops to leave the Middle East. The Iranian missile strikes come just days
after the Iraqi Parliament voted to expel all foreign military forces from
Iraq. We speak with Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, as we
continue to look at Iran’s attack on two Iraqi military bases that house U.S.
and Iraqi troops, firing 22 missiles at the bases, no casualties reported. Iran
described the attack as “revenge” for the U.S. assassination of Iranian
commander Qassem Soleimani at the Baghdad International Airport last week.
We go now to the University of Michigan, to professor Juan
Cole, who teaches history there. His blog,
Informed Comment, is online at JuanCole.com, the author of many books,
including Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires.
Your response to the Iranian attacks on the Iraqi bases that
house U.S. and Iraqi troops, and then, of course, before that, the
assassination of Soleimani?
JUAN COLE: Well, both the assassination of General Soleimani
and the Iranian response are unprecedented in the past 40 years of tension
between the United States and Iran. In fact, the assassination of General
Soleimani is unprecedented in general. I lived through the Cold War, and never
do I remember the United States assassinating a Soviet general. The two
countries were involved in very serious proxy wars and great tensions, but it
never went to the point where they would just murder each other’s high
officials. So, this is, I think, something that would only be done by an
extremely erratic person such as Donald Trump. This is not a normal piece of
And that it would elicit an enormous response from Iran was
predictable. The response that came, however, did surprise me, because Iran has
not tended to act in a direct and open fashion against its enemies. In recent
years, it has tended to have a certain degree of deniability in anything that
it did. It still hasn’t been absolutely determined that Iran itself struck the
Abqaiq refinery in Saudi Arabia in September. There have been tanker attacks that,
again, haven’t been directly tied to Iran, although Iran is under suspicion for
them. So, I had expected that Iran would work through proxies and try to avoid
having a direct fingerprint on this response. That they fired missiles at bases
where U.S. personnel were present, even though they appeared to have gone out
of their way to avoid any casualties, either Iraqi or American, at least
symbolically, takes this conflict between the two countries to a much higher
level. It’s spiraling. It’s escalating in very worrisome ways.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think will at this point happen?
Today, President Trump expected to address the nation.
JUAN COLE: The two countries at this point have several
choices before them. One would be to leave it at that. There was an
assassination, there was a response. The two have been involved in a lot of
covert actions against one another. They could go back to doing that. Or it
could escalate. President Trump could order missile strikes on facilities of
the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, in which case I presume there would be an
Iranian response to that, as well. So, these are the two possibilities that are
before us, either finding a way to turn to diplomacy and stand down or to
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to the U.S. Defense Secretary
Mark Esper speaking Tuesday.
DEFENSE SECRETARY MARK ESPER: As we defend our people and
interests, let me reiterate that the United States is not seeking a war with
Iran, but we are prepared to finish one. We are seeking a diplomatic solution.
But first this will require Iran to de-escalate. It will require the regime to
come to the table with the goal of preventing further bloodshed. And it will
require them to cease their malign activities throughout the region. As I’ve
said, we are open to having this discussion with them, but we are just as
prepared to deliver a forceful response to defend our interests.
AMY GOODMAN: Juan Cole, your response to the U.S. secretary
JUAN COLE: Well, I just find it very difficult to take this
sort of discourse from the Trump administration seriously. They killed one of
the high-ranking generals of another country, and then they said they did that
to avoid a war or that now is the time for de-escalation? I mean, what world do
they live in? This is extremely erratic behavior.
And the fact that someone who’s relatively levelheaded like
Mark Esper is going along with it is extremely alarming. I think that the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should simply have resigned rather than
go forward with this attack on Soleimani, which was clearly illegal.
The prime minister of Iraq, who everybody in the U.S. press
and among the political class is completely ignoring — this kind of
Trump’s insistence on a white hierarchy has turned into a white hierarchy of
knowledge, so if a brown person says something, it’s just not entered into the
discourse. Abdul-Mahdi made it very clear that he had invited General Soleimani
to Iraq to be involved in negotiations between Iran and Saudi Arabia to reduce
tensions. Soleimani came on a commercial flight, where the manifest is clear.
He checked through Baghdad airport with a diplomatic passport. And then Trump
just blew him away, along with several other people, including a high-ranking
Iraqi military official.
This is weird. And, you know, one can only imagine that it’s
possible that Trump and Esper and Pompeo and that gang didn’t want tensions
between Saudi Arabia and Iran to be reduced, and that was the reason for the
strike. This cover story they gave up that Suleimani was coming to kill
Americans is, you know, falling-down-laughing ridiculous. So —
AMY GOODMAN: And now they just refer to him as a “bad guy.”
JUAN COLE: Now they — and you see major journalists and
television anchors talking about him as a bad guy. What kind of — this is not
journalism; this is just war propaganda.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you what Garrett Graff, the
journalist, tweeted yesterday. He said, “Reminder that as this crisis
escalates, we have no Director of National Intelligence, no Dep Dir, no
Homeland Security Secretary, no Dep Sec, no head of CBP or ICE, no State Dept
Under Sec of Arms Control, no Asst Sec for Europe, and no Navy Sec.”
JUAN COLE: The Trump administration is a hollow shell. Six
high Pentagon officials have recently resigned, partially because of Trump’s
erratic behavior. It’s extremely worrisome that a person with, it seems to me,
clear personality deficits is the commander-in-chief of the United States and
actually, you know, can launch nuclear weapons. So, that he is engaging in this
kind of escalation is extremely worrisome.
The other thing that the American public is not generally
being told, although it sometimes comes out a bit, is that the United States
has Iran under a financial blockade of unprecedented proportions. Iran is being
sanctioned to a degree that no country has ever been sanctioned in peacetime.
In essence, you know, if you drew up a naval blockade to prevent Iran from
trading with other countries, that would be an act of war in international law.
The Trump administration has done this through financial means. It’s gone to
Japan, South Korea, India, said, “You may not deal with Iran. You may not buy
Iranian petroleum.” So Iran’s petroleum receipts have plummeted. That was 70%
of their income, from two-and-a-half million barrels a day to 500,000 barrels a
day. The country is being economically strangled. And that is the reason for
which we see all of this tension and violence. Trump already has been at war
with Iran for 19 months.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you respond to the contradictory messages
from the Pentagon and the White House? Monday, the U.S. Command in Baghdad
issued a memo to the Iraqi government appearing to suggest the U.S. would
withdraw U.S. troops from the country, this after the Iraqi Parliament’s vote
to expel U.S. military forces, but, hours later, Defense Secretary Mark Esper
said the U.S. is not withdrawing troops from Iraq?
JUAN COLE: Well, again, it’s just typical Trump
administration dysfunction. CENTCOM, the Central Command in the Middle East,
knows very well that the United States troops have to leave Iraq now. The
Parliament voted. It wasn’t an advisory vote. The Parliament voted that the
Iraqi government should take steps to expel U.S. troops. And that resolution
that Parliament passed was presented to them by the prime minister. It was an
act of the executive to have the vote. So, the Trump administration is trying
to depict it as a mere advisory vote. It wasn’t. It was a vote of Parliament,
and the executive asked for the vote and will now — and Prime Minister
Abdul-Mahdi has said that he takes the letter from the U.S. military at its
face value, which was that the U.S. was preparing to leave.
The United States troops can’t be in Iraq if the Iraqi
government doesn’t authorize their presence, because it would open them to
lawsuits. Every time they got involved in a firefight, if somebody was killed,
those people could haul U.S. troops before an Iraqi judge. They could be
executed for murder. So, the U.S. troops will have to leave. And I think the
Iranian strikes on those bases were partly to encourage the Sunni Arabs and the
Kurds, who are dragging their feet on this matter, to agree that the U.S.
troops should leave, because they don’t want to be in the middle of a crossfire
between Iran and the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Juan Cole, I want to thank you for being
with us, a professor at University of Michigan, speaking to us from Ann Arbor.
(*) Democracy Now! produces a daily, global,
independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan
González. Reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth
interviews with people on the front lines of the world’s most pressing issues.