Foundation for Defense of Democracies

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is a neoconservative advocacy organization that was founded in the wake of the 9/11 attacks with the goal of pushing an aggressive “war on terror” in the Middle East and “pro-Israel” policies in Washington. The group initially claimed to wage ideological combat with “militant Islamism” in “a global war … being waged against democratic societies.” Today, the FDD claims that its mission is “to promote pluralism, defend democratic values and fight the ideologies that drive terrorism.”

With annual revenue exceeding 13 million USD (according to 2017 tax records), FDD is able to finance a large stable of “experts” who push for U.S. military intervention in the Middle East and advocate one-sided U.S. support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arguably FDD’s main target is Iran, which the they claim is seeking to establish a global Islamic empire. FDD has been a leading opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, which aims to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons; it has pilloried both U.S. and European efforts to pursue dialogue with the “mullahs”; and, more recently, it has applauded the Donald Trump administration’s erattic “maximum pressure” strategy to bring about regime change in Tehran.

Defending Autocracies

In March 2018, FDD’s CEO, Mark Dubowitz, departed from the organization’s stated goal of democratizing the Middle East when he asked his followers on Twitter to discuss his proposition that: “Sadly democracy has been a disaster for minorities in the Middle East – and not just for minorities. So have brutal authoritarians. This third way (“inclusive authoritarianism”) might be a better alternative.”[1] A Washington Post columnist quipped, “This guy literally runs an outfit called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies!”[2]

The question of how to deal with key U.S. allies in the Middle East that are also authoritarian and severe human rights violators came to the forefront over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi resident of the United States and columnist for the Washington Post. Few doubted that the Saudi ruling family—and specifically, the de factor Saudi ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS)—were responsible for the killing, despite the efforts of President Donald Trump and senior officials in his administration to defend the Saudis.

FDD fellow Thomas Joscelyn “noted that Washington’s past partnerships with Saudi Arabia have featured in some of the darker chapters of its involvement in the region—from its recent backing of a Saudi air campaign that has led to thousands of civilian casualties in Yemen to its support for jihadi groups in Afghanistan in the 1980s that later gave rise to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.” Joscelyn said that he had advised Trump “against tilting policy in the direction of enabling Sunni extremism against Iran. The US shouldn’t view Sunni extremists as a bulwark against the Iranians, and the Saudis have a history of exporting Sunni extremism. I think the value of Saudi Arabia as a strategic hedge or however you want to put it against Iran is overstated.”

But Dubowitz had a different view. He believed that the problem was with specific, poor decisions by the current Saudi leadership, but that the strategy of relying on Saudi fundamentalism to oppose Iran was a sound one. “If MBS were to be removed tomorrow, I don’t think there would be a fundamental change,” he said. “If anything, you could make the case that by bringing in someone who was more experienced, less petulant, and less impulsive in how they make decisions, it would make the Iranians less capable of taking advantage of some of the mistakes that this crown prince has been making.”[3]

Dubowitz’s cynical view was reinforced in a New York Times op-ed by Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute, and Dubowitz’s FDD colleague research fellow Tony Badran. Apologetically asserting that “every president since Harry Truman has aligned with unsavory Middle Eastern rulers in the service of national interests,” the authors went on to state that “The true test of whether a presidential fiction is acceptable is whether the strategy it serves is sound,” which, in their view, the U.S.-Saudi relationship was.

“The kingdom has sheltered comfortably for over 75 years under the American security umbrella,” wrote Doran and Badran, “which the United States happily extended not least because the Saudis and their oil have played a pivotal role in American economic strategies. Mr. Trump’s statement acknowledged that the Saudis are assisting him with stabilizing global oil prices as he seeks to quash Iranian oil sales. Whatever Prince Mohammed’s faults may be, he actively supports the American regional order that the Iranians openly seek to destroy.”[4]

This approach characterized the peace FDD generally came to in the Trump era. Seeking a way to reconcile their “defense of democracies” with Trump’s embrace of authoritarianism, and with the fact that Trump’s approach to a number of key issues—notably, Iran and the Israel-Palestine conflict—the erstwhile neoconservatives adopted their own definition of a favorite term of Trump’s to differentiate their view from fellow neocons such as William Kristol, Bret Stephens, and Max Boot who had categorically rejected the 45^th president. The phrase was “principled realism.”

FDD president Clifford May—in a spirited defense of national security adviser John Bolton—bluntly framed the Machiavellian argument, writing, “the world is more akin to a jungle than a global village. In light of that harsh reality, all John Bolton is saying is give anti-globalism a chance,” arguing that Bolton was leading the way in putting the United States’ interests first.[5]

Evolving Views of Trump

During the 2016 presidential campaign, FDD was reluctant to embrace Donald Trump’s candidacy as many of its leaders worried over the real estate magnate’s inconsistent statements[6] on U.S. military intervention and his likely appeal to ISIS.[7] Its publications during the campaign reflected the rift amongst neoconservatives over the future direction of the Republican Party as some leading neocon intellectuals like Robert Kagan claimed to abandon the GOP in the wake of Trump’s rise. Some FDD scholars, like Bush-era Pentagon official Eric Edelman, participated in public campaigns aimed at organizing GOP opposition to Trump.[8] On the other hand, FDD writer Michael Ledeen – an early supporter of Sen. Ted Cruz –sought to defend Trump from claims that he is a fascist, arguing that while he is not a “Trump fan” critics would do better to apply the fascist label to jihadis.[9]

After Trump’s election, FDD pressed for renegotiation of the Iran nuclear deal, a step which most analysts agreed would have killed it.[10] A policy brief from FDD scholar Olli Heinonen issued less than three weeks after Trump’s inauguration argued for a United Nations Security Council resolution to limit Iranian missile capabilities beyond the restrictions already in place. This would have heightened tensions with Iran. Notably, Heinonen’s reason for this recommendation speaks to FDD’s broader stance on the deal. He wrote, “Failure to address this problem means that Iran will have delivery vehicles on hand when it is able, in a decade, to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb in merely a few weeks.”[11] This prediction of Iran being able acquire a bomb in a short time after certain provisions of the deal expire stands in stark contrast to the opinions of most observers who maintain that the clauses in the deal that expire at various points in the future will not suddenly enable Iran to race to a nuclear weapon.[12]

FDD’s passion for regime change in Iran is much more blatant than many groups. In a recent article, FDD analyst Reuel Marc Gerecht, writing with Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote, “The potential for a democratic transition exists in Iran, where such aspirations have been growing for over 100 years. As regime-shaking street protests have repeatedly revealed, the country is a volcano. We want it to erupt.”[13]

FDD’s experts have been leading advocates of U.S. military intervention in Middle East, particularly in Iran and Syria. They were vocal supporters of the war in Iraq, have promoted hardline policies on Iran, and advocated one-sided U.S. support for Israel in its conflict with Palestinians.

Trump’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Iran deal despite having no grounds to do so was one of a list of moves Trump made that FDD approved of, even if it had criticisms of Trump’s overall approach. One reporter described FDD’s assessment of Trump midway through his first term as “some praise of the administration’s strategy, leavened by a strong dose of criticism for the way Trump executes it.”[14]

FDD president Clifford May summarized the report card, writing, “I think it is clear that Trump deserves more credit than his Democratic and Republican #NeverTrump critics give him, but less than his most fervent fans – and the president himself – like to claim.

On the plus side, he has seemed not just willing, but eager, to confront America’s many enemies, adversaries, and competitors, and to prevent them from making further advances. On the minus side, he has been mercurial, impulsive, and too quick to cast instances of modest progress as significant victories.”

May offered mixed reviews of many of Trump’s decisions, generally praising more aggressive use of U.S. military power and criticizing areas where Trump worked to draw down U.S. military engagement. He used this yardstick for budgetary priorities as well, praising Trump for “rebuilding” the U.S. military, but then saying he didn’t go far enough. “Nevertheless, the military remains, woefully under-resourced if the goals are (1) deterrence, and (2) ensuring that American forces easily overmatch any enemy or combination of enemies. In particular, the U.S. must prepare to face constant pressure from China, whose rapid economic growth and innovative use of technology have fed its hegemonic and neo-imperialist ambitions.”[15] The contention was a bit odd, in light of the fact that China had set its 2019 defense budget at just under $178 billion—an increase of 7.5% from the previous year[16]—while the United States defense budget for fiscal year 2019 is $716 billion.[17]

Origins

Shortly after its founding, FDD quickly became a prominent member of a group of neoconservative think tanks and advocacy groups – including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute – that were influential in shaping the early foreign policy priorities of the George W. Bush administration. At the height of the so-called “war on terror,” FDD also absorbed the Committee on the Present Danger, a Cold War-era anticommunist group that been reconstituted to push for hardline policies in the Middle East.

FDD is the successor organization of a group called EMET, an education initiative founded earlier in 2001 as part of an effort to gain support for Israel’s response to the Palestinian Intifada and to diminish public outcry against Israeli actions.[18] Regarding EMET, Slate reported in mid-2015: “On April 24, 2001, three major pro-Israel donors incorporated an organization called EMET (Hebrew for ‘truth’). In an application to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, [FDD president Clifford May] explained that the group ‘was to provide education to enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations.’”[19]

Iran

FDD has been a vocal advocate of confrontational policies on Iran. Many of its writers like Michael Ledeen and Emanuele Ottolenghi have promoted policies that could lead to military conflict. Their recommendations have focused on terminating the nuclear deal with Iran in the short term and regime change in the longer term.

Although FDD had been dubious about Donald Trump during his election campaign, after Trump won the presidency, FDD worked to influence Trump’s Iran policy toward regime change. In June of 2017, Politico reported that FDD CEO Mark Dubowitz submitted a memo to Trump recommending steps toward regime change in Iran.

According to Politico, the memo stated, “Iran is susceptible to a strategy of coerced democratization because it lacks popular support and relies on fear to sustain its power. The very structure of the regime invites instability, crisis and possibly collapse … No one has greater power to mobilize dissent abroad than the American president.”[20]

Many observers had noted that FDD and its leaders seemed to have been key strategists informing the more aggressive foreign policies of the Trump administration. When Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, hired FDD senior adviser Richard Goldberg as his assistant in January 2019, the perception of FDD’s heavy influence was confirmed.[21]

Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal fulfilled a primary desire for most of the organization. Yet the dubious results of that decision seemed to escape FDD scrutiny. In a January 2019 assessment of Trump’s first two years in office, Dubowitz wrote, “Tehran is reeling from the combination of sanctions pressure and the popular discontent aggravated by the regime’s own repression and mismanagement.” Yet many other observers, around the same time, were discussing the clear failure of Trump’s policy toward Iran. For example, journalist Daniel Larison wrote, “Our government has violated the JCPOA and the Security Council resolution that endorsed it, and that has both left the U.S. isolated on this issue and weakened our position internationally. Our allies have been forced to defend themselves against U.S. sanctions, and their efforts to circumvent the sanctions will have longer term negative consequences for U.S. foreign policy. The Iranian government’s behavior has not changed significantly, and the costs borne by the Iranian people are very high. Our government is inflicting collective punishment of an entire nation for no good reason, and we are teaching another generation of Iranians to loathe and distrust us.”[22]

Former CIA analyst Paul Pillar opined that ‘there is not the slightest sign that this move is achieving the declared objective of Iran returning to the negotiating table to negotiate a ‘better deal.’ Tehran instead has been exuding perseverance and hardline resistance.”[23] Another observer stated that “Iranians who are plugged into Western culture and would otherwise be inclined to view America favorably are unlikely to blame Tehran for Washington’s sanctions,” and that Trump’s sanctions policies “will fuel sympathy for hardline rhetoric and undermine support for moderate Iranian leaders who might bring their country back to the negotiating table.”[24] In the face of such reports, Dubowitz offered no substantiation for his assessment, but rather considered the damage inflicted on Iran’s economy a success in itself.[25]

During their campaign against the nuclear deal, FDD repeatedly argued that “sunset clauses” meant that the deal merely delays an Iranian nuclear weapon, and that as soon as these clauses expire, Iran may race to assemble a nuclear weapon. Although a large pool of arms control and international affairs experts have refuted this claim,[26] FDD has pressed on with it. In October 2017, FDD scholar Olli Heinonen repeated the claim in testimony for the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, stating, “The time to act is now, and not six years from now when the sunset clauses begin to take effect. It will be far harder to fix the deal once sunset clauses help Iran to permanently establish itself as a threshold nuclear state with the capability to manufacture and deliver nuclear warheads in a short period of time.”[27]

In the past, FDD maintained several Iran-related projects, including the Iran/Hezbollah Project,[28] the Iran Energy Project,[29] and the Iran Human Rights Project, which helped found iranchannel.org.[30]

Of these projects, which as of 2015 all appear defunct, the Iran Energy Project was arguably the most influential. Led by FDD executive director Mark Dubowitz, the project became a clearinghouse for research and talking points in favor of a crippling U.S. and international sanctions regime on Iran. “As the Iran issue turned into a hot-button foreign policy problem for Obama,” an OZY profile noted in January 2014, “Dubowitz and FDD colleagues like Jonathan Schanzer, a former Treasury Department official on terrorist financing, have become go-to sources for the New York Times, AP and others,” including for “sanction hawks” in Congress.[31]

In February 2018, journalist Robert Wright noted the ongoing primacy of FDD as an ostensibly impartial source, writing, “FDD does an impressive job of cultivating experts who can give journalists useful and sometimes hard-to-find information –  and who, in return, get quoted a lot in the media. Almost invariably, the quotes strike a balance: They don’t overtly editorialize—and indeed are often defensible observations insofar as they go – a yet they carry a subtle slant. The FDD quote in the (New York) Times piece[32] is a good example: ‘The ultimate goal is, in the case of another war, to make Syria a new front between Israel, Hezbollah and Iran. They are making that not just a goal, but a reality.’”[33]

In the shorter term, FDD has advocated an aggressive U.S. stance against Iran in Syria. In February 2018, FDD’s then-senior adviser Richard Goldberg wrote, “Now is the time for Trump to re-establish a robust military deterrent toward Iranian expansionism in close collaboration with regional allies. His administration declared the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist entity in October, and he should target key Guards’ bases and weapons in Syria accordingly. Such an approach could help prevent a larger-scale conflict.”[34]

FDD CEO Mark Dubowitz has long pushed for sanctions that would cause domestic hardship and turmoil inside Iran and argued against adapting U.S. laws to ease the import of sanctions-exempt U.S. medicines.[35] “Political and economic isolation is designed to nurture Iran’s convulsive internal contradictions,” Dubowitz wrote in a 2011 Weekly Standardpiece coauthored with Reuel Marc Gerecht. “The issue is timing: Can we put enough pressure on [Iranian Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei and his praetorians to either crack the regime or make the supreme leader believe that the nuclear program actually threatens his rule?”[36]

FDD was very critical of the nuclear negotiations between Iran and six world powers that led to a comprehensive nuclear deal in July 2015. Dubowitz staunchly opposed any lapse in economic pressure after Iran reached an interim nuclear deal with the six world powers known as the P5+1 in late 2013. “The efficacy of sanctions depends on the threat of escalation, where an ever-expanding web of restrictions scares off foreign businesses,” he and Gerecht wrote in a November 2013 Wall Street Journal op-ed. “The sanctions game with Iran has been as much psychological as legal,” they added. “When the Obama administration sends a signal that it is willing to reduce economic sanctions for little in return, the general impression abroad … is that the White House’s resolve is waning.”[37] Dubowitz was a staunch supporter of sanctions legislation introduced during the talks by Sens. Mark Kirk and Robert Menendez, which observers argued were designed to scuttle the process altogether by violating a U.S. pledge not to impose new penalties during the negotiations.[38]

In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee shortly before the November 2014 deadline for negotiations between Iran and the P5+1, Dubowitz suggested that the sanctions regime on Iran should remain even if an agreement is reached. Congress should “’defend the sanctions architecture it was so instrumental in creating’ to enforce a nuclear deal that may be announced between the United States and its allies and Iran in the coming days,” an FDD press release quotes him as saying.[39] FDD president Clifford May wrote in a opinion piece that “If the president chooses to ignore Congress,” then it should withhold funding to implement any deal.[40]

Upon its completion, FDD fellows and staff assailed the July 2015 nuclear deal reached between Iran and the P5+1. “This deal is going to leave the next president with an excruciatingly difficult decision: either to accept an Iranian bomb or to bomb Iran,” claimed Dubowitz after the agreement was announced.[41] May contended that “Mr. Obama seeks to accommodate and appease Iran’s rulers.” He added: “It would be an exaggeration to say that such policies always lead to major wars and holocausts. But can you tell me when such policies have led to good outcomes?”[42]

In an op-ed for the right-wing Washington Times, May also denounced the Obama administration for working with the rest of the P5+1 to pass a U.N. Security Council Resolution backing the agreement. “If that isn’t technically a surrender of American sovereignty, it certainly opens that door – and, I’m afraid, removes the remaining hinges,” May declared. He further accused Obama of “setting changes to the Constitution” for not passing the deal as a treaty through Congress.[43]

Some observers have noted that FDD’s real opposition to the Iran nuclear deal is the potential it created for a broader U.S.-Iran rapprochement. According to John Judis: “[Clifford] May described sympathetically Israel’s ‘worry that Mr. Obama means to form a de facto alliance with Iran.’ Some observers have long said that this concern actually lies at the heart of the Israeli government’s opposition to a deal with Iran: Netanyahu fears that a deal would wed American foreign policy to an irredeemably revolutionary Iran at the expense of Israel.”[44]

However, in their opposition to the Iran deal, FDD and its like-minded allies have sought to emphasize the supposed threats the agreement poses to the United States, as opposed to Israel. “FDD experts have lately stressed the Iran agreement’s threat to America rather than its threat to Israel. AIPAC has followed the same path in an ad called ‘We Need a Better Deal,’ which its Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran produced. People at AIPAC and FDD may be worried that they will be accused of acting solely in Israel’s interest or of putting Israel’s interest before that of the United States,” wrote Judis.[45]

FDD has also promoted providing direct support to Iran’s opposition “Green Movement.” In 2010, at its annual forum on the theme “Countering the Iranian threat,” then-newly elected Sen. Mark Kirk, the event’s keynote speaker, argued that President Obama should reach out to exiled members of the Green Movement, increase aid to Iranian democracy groups, and make Iranian political prisoners “household names throughout America” like President Ronald Reagan did with Soviet detainees in the 1980s.[46]

Many figures associated with FDD have been vocal proponents of direct military action against Iran. “We are in a big war, and Iran is at the heart of the enemy army,” wrote Michael Ledeen in 2009. “Most of the time, our leaders have refused to accept the fact that Iran will do everything possible to dominate or destroy us. Instead of trying to defeat the mullahs, every president has sought rapprochement, just as Obama is doing now.”[47] Remarking on his own longtime advocacy for war with Iran, FDD fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht once quipped, “I’ve written about 25,000 words about bombing Iran. Even my mom thinks I’ve gone too far.”[48]

Israel-Palestine

Another core FDD preoccupation is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, about which the organization promotes views similar to those of Israel’s right-wing Likud Party. An early example of its advocacy on this issue came in Spring 2002, when in an apparent effort to thwart Bush administration initiatives to reopen Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations, FDD aired 30-second television spots conflating Yasser Arafat with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.[49] The video’s producer was Nir Boms, FDD’s first vice president and a former officer for the Israeli Embassy in Washington.[50]

In recent years, the Israel-Palestine conflict has receded in FDD’s agenda as their focus on Iran has intensified. Still, they strongly supported the decision by President Donald Trump to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Jonathan Schanzer, FDD’s senior vice president, wrote, “Despite a cacophony of claims to the contrary, Trump’s decision does not undermine Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim claims on the city. The move does not preclude the Palestinians from establishing their capital in the city in the future. Nor does it alter the United States’ longstanding view that the future status of the city is an issue that must be negotiated between the Palestinians and Israelis in bilateral negotiations.”[51] This common defense of the decision has been repeatedly undermined by Trump himself, who insists he took Jerusalem “off the table.”[52]

FDD’s position has been that the Israel-Palestine conflict is the result of the Palestinians’ refusal to accept Israel’s existence. FDD President Clifford May reiterated this position on the occasion of the one-hundredth anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, where in the British government expressed its support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1917. May wrote, “Who doesn’t want self-determination for the Palestinians? Who doesn’t want to see Palestinians living in freedom and prosperity? That could have begun 70 years ago. It could begin tomorrow. In theory, it would require only willingness on the part of Palestinians to accept and peacefully coexist alongside the “national home for the Jewish people” envisaged by the Balfour Declaration.  In practice, such a change of heart might be another hundred years away.”[53]

During the 2014 Gaza War, FDD “journalist-in-residence” Claudia Rosett vociferously criticized the United Nations Relief Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), claiming that it was “one of the U.N.’s most perverse, destructive creations” and that “it essentially functions as Hamas’s handmaiden” in the Gaza Strip. Rosett decried UNRWA for having accused Israel of violating international law during the conflict and lamented that an UNRWA spokesman had “wept for the Palestinians” on Al Jazeera. She added: “U.S. tax dollars fund UNRWA officials now lobbying in Washington to obtain yet more money for an agency entwined with the rocket-launching, tunnel-digging rulers of Gaza.”[54] In 2018, in the wake of President Trump’s decision to cut funding to UNRWA, FDD raised similar criticisms to Rosett’s in a podcast discussion among its leadership.[55]

In late February 2004, FDD submitted a supporting brief to the International Court of Justice, which was considering a Palestinian petition to have the massive wall Israel was building in the West Bank condemned as a breach of international law. FDD claimed that the wall, which has been at the center of violent disputes between Palestinians and Israelis as well as a campaign of nonviolent resistance, was a first step toward resolving the conflict: “The terrorism prevention barrier can benefit the Palestinians because with it in place, Israel’s re-occupation of West Bank cities and towns will no longer be necessary. Tanks, troops, checkpoints, and roadblocks will be removed as terrorism declines. Under such circumstances, the chances for renewed negotiations leading to a settlement can increase.”[56]

FDD has also pushed for the United States to aggressively confront and marginalize the grassroots BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, which promotes placing economic pressure on Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories. Speaking before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in July 2015, FDD executive director Mark Dubowitz stated: “The BDS movement is a tool of political, economic, and financial warfare against Israel. Those waging this war seek to first isolate and delegitimize Israel and to turn it into an international pariah. From there, doing economic damage to Israel becomes an easier task.”[57]

Dubowitz added: “While many in this country are focused on the threatening atmosphere that the BDS movement has created for pro-Israel students on campus, FDD’s research has determined that the economic and financial warfare campaign currently targeting Israel’s economic and financial relationships with Europe is far more dangerous. … BDS is a form of economic and financial warfare. We can and should weaken it through tactical measures. This hearing is an important step to that end. But BDS must also be viewed within a broader problem set that must be addressed at a more strategic level. Failure to do so will leave us vulnerable to attack, while also leaving exposed our most reliable partner in the Middle East as well as other important allies in Europe, Asia and around the world.”[58]

In October 2010, FDD released a report called “Palestinian Pulse: What Policymakers Can Learn From Palestinian Social Media.” Similar to the Iranian social media project it launched in 2012, the project purported to use “military-grade software to cull information from social networks” to “determine Palestinian public sentiment and its potential impact on U.S. foreign policy.” Report coauthor Mark Dubowitz suggested that the results showed a lingering Palestinian antipathy toward Israel. “If the online environment is even a remotely accurate indicator of Palestinian public sentiment,” he said, “the Obama administration’s Middle East peace initiative may encounter more challenges than expected. The United States cannot discount the impact of deepening Palestinian rejectionism.”[59]

Although the report seemed to suggest that attitudes tracked through social media could shed some light on the outcome of peace talks, no corresponding analysis of Israeli social media postings was apparently conducted (though the authors did acknowledge toward the end of the report that such research “could be carried out”).[60]

Non-Partisan?

FDD’s claims of nonpartisanship were severely damaged in February 2008 after it created a spin-off organization, the now-defunct Defense of Democracies, to run an aggressive television ad campaign aimed at pressuring the Democratic-led House to “pass the Senate’s version” of the “Terror Surveillance Bill.” The controversial bill was aimed at providing retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had cooperated with the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance programs. FDD has 501(c)(3) non-profit status, which bars it from undertaking political activities. However, according to a February 25, 2008 statement on the FDD website, the spin-off organization, which operated out of the same offices as FDD, was “a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(4) advocacy organization affiliated with, though separate from, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Its mission is to support and encourage policies, procedures and laws necessary to defeat terrorism.”

Targeted ads that aired in more than a dozen different Democratic-held congressional districts left the impression that if the House didn’t pass the bill in question, the United States would lose clearance to “intercept Al Qaeda communications.” Spencer Ackerman, reporting in the Washington Independent, wrote, “In fact, the intelligence community has the authority to intercept Al Qaeda communications under other laws; the expired Protect America Act allowed the National Security Agency to intercept communications between any two persons of interest to a foreign intelligence investigation, even including U.S. citizens, without a warrant.”[61]

Noting that FDD had received State Department contracts in the past, some observers pointed out that any use of State Department funding for political advocacy would be illegal. “A spokesman for the foundation, Brian Wise, said he did not know the exact monetary worth of the foundation’s [State Department] grants,” reported Ackerman. “But he said one grant was worth $487,000 for an unspecified democracy-promotion program. Wise conceded that the foundation had founded the Defense of Democracies organization last week ‘for tax purposes,’ adding that ‘Defense of Democracies [provides] issue advocacy, whereas the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is a policy institute and academic institution.’ … Wise said he was ‘100 percent sure’ that no federal funds received by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies went to the Defense of Democracies. ‘They are completely separate organizations with separate funding sources.’”[62]

FDD’s efforts to distinguish itself from Defense of Democracies did not satisfy many Democratic supporters of the foundation, some of whom expressed outrage that FDD would target their colleagues. Within days of the ads’ airing, nearly all the Democrats who had served on FDD’s board of advisors quit, including Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia, and former Al Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile. Asked about the resignations, FDD’s Clifford May told Newsweek, “I’m disappointed that the political pressures have been such that several Democratic members of FDD’s board of advisors—including several who I’m pretty sure agree with us on the substance of the issue—have decided to resign. The Senate bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, which persuaded us this was not a partisan issue.”[63]

Staff, Leadership, and Projects

The FDD has a stable of policy wonks with hawkish track records, especially on Mideast-related issues. Prominent senior fellows and staffers have included Andrew C. McCarthy, a contributor to the National Review and former federal prosecutor; Michael Ledeen, an ultra-hawk formerly with the American Enterprise Institute; Toby Dershowitz, a former spokesperson for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and fundraiser for the Brussels-based European Foundation for Democracy; and journalist Claudia Rosett, a winner of the Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism (which was established by Rupert Murdoch , a close ally of many neoconservatives). Other notable FDD scholars have included Emanuele Ottolenghi, Walid Phares, Lee Smith, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Richard Goldberg, Emanuele Ottolenghi, Olli Heinonen, and James Kirchick.

Many FDD principals were associated with the Project for the New American Century, a now-defunct neoconservative institute that was one of the leading promoters of the Iraq War and the Bush administration’s aggressive agenda in the Middle East. These include James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, Bill Kristol, Steve Forbes, Richard Perle, JeaneKirkpatrick, and Charles Krauthammer, among others.

FDD does not provide details about its board of directors on its website. However, accoridng ot its 2017 tax return, hich was the most recent available from Guidestar as of January 2020, FDD directors included: Lennert Leader, Bernard Marcus, Leonard Abramson, Eric Dezenhall, David Naftaly, Mark Pruzanski, Kenneth Schwartz, Larry Hochberg, Mark Pelson, James Litinsky

FDD puts out a podcast, where their president, Clifford May, discusses FDD’s positions, often with other FDD fellows and staff members.[64]

FDD runs many projects and programs, though some appear dormant. In addition to the projects noted above, FDD operates a program explicitly devoted to “promoting regime change in Syria”[65] and another dedicated to ensuring U.S. support for Israel’s “quantitative military edge” in the Middle East. Other projects have included the Center for Terrorism Research, at one time headed by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and Walid Phares; the Center for Law & Counterterrorism, headed by Andrew McCarthy; the Future of Terrorism Project; and the Radical Islam in Africa Project focusing on the Horn of Africa, which FDD calls the “forgotten front” in the war on terror. In addition, FDD hosts the Shield America project, dedicated to promoting elaborate “missile defense” projects and alerting the public and policy makers about the discredited “threat” of an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) terrorist attack from Iran. (For more on the EMP threat, see Robert Farley, “The EMP Threat: Lots of Hype, Little Traction,” Right Web, October 2009.)[66]

The foundation aims several projects at young people. It operates a Campus Program, a “National Security Fellows” program for “up-and-coming members of the policy community, and a “National Security Trip to Israel,” which takes aspiring young DC professionals for private meetings with Israeli political and security officials.”[67]

FDD has operated numerous democracy-support programs over the years, including an education program with the “goal of advancing democratic values of liberty, tolerance, pluralism, and individual rights in the Greater Middle East”; a program that promoted “democracy activists” in the Middle East; and one that focused on South Asia.  During the George W. Bush administration, FDD expanded its democracy programs in the Middle East with U.S. government funding. One such program was the Iraqi Women’s Educational Institute (IWEI), a joint initiative of the American Islamic Conference, FDD, and the conservative Independent Women’s Forum . The mission of this short-lived organization was, according to FDD, to promote the participation of women in Iraqi society through programs on democracy education and coalition building.[68] Between 2004 and 2006, the IWEI ran two initiatives with funding from the U.S. State Department.[69]

In mid-2006, FDD and the European Foundation for Democracy, both of which listed Walid Phares as a fellow, created a joint project called the Center for Liberty in the Middle East (CLIME), “a non-profit organization that supports individuals and civic groups that are spreading democratic values of liberty and tolerance in the Middle East.” With headquarters in both Brussels and Washington, D.C. and a multinational staff made up of scholars from Europe, the Middle East, and the United States, CLIME’s website claims to advocate “peaceful transitions to political systems that protect individual liberties, enable full political participation, and respect ethnic, religious and political diversity.”[70]

Budget and Financing

According to FDD’s 2017 tax return (Form 990), which was the most recent available from Guidestar as of January 2020, the organization’s total revenue that year was approximately 13.2 million USD; expenses totaled approximately 13.4 million. FDD has long been secretive about its sources of funding, with May insisting that the organization enjoys the support of “all kinds of donors who are interested in defending democratic societies around the world from their sworn enemies.” But an August 2013 Salon report revealed that FDD subsisted primarily on the donations from a “handful” of the Republican Party’s “heavyweight donors, fundraisers, and outspoken critics of the Obama White House’s foreign policy.” Key donors at that time included Home Depot founder Bernard Marcus, hedge fund billionaire and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs board member Paul Singer, and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, also a well-known funder of right-wing “pro-Israel” pressure groups. All three have also been prominent backers of the Republican Jewish Coalition.[71]

The 2017 revenue and spending appeared to represent an important increase from early FDD reports. Its 2011 990 filing, for example, reported little over $8 million in revenues.[72] Salon, however, found that the group’s Schedule A form from the same year reported nearly $11 million in receipts from Marcus, $3.6 million from Singer, and over $1.5 million from Adelson. Rounding out the list were million-dollar contributions from both Newton Becker and his family foundation, the Abramson Family Foundation, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation—all of which have supported the work of other neoconservative groups in the past. Journalist Eli Clifton concluded that the numbers belied FDD’s claims to bipartisan support. “FDD’s right-wing national security work,” he wrote, “has long corresponded nicely with the politics of the nation’s right-leaning political party.”[73]

In 2015, FDD reported a substantial increase in assets, over $14 million, without explanation in publicly available documents. This added income, however, helped offset operating expenses of approximately $10.4 million against reported revenue of only $8.75 million.[74]

A 2011 investigation by Think Progress revealed the dozens of donors who helped launch FDD and keep it afloat during its formative years. According to tax documents obtained by Think Progress, which were combined into one PDF with addresses deleted, among the main funders during the 2001-2004 period were the Abramson Family Foundation, led by the founder of U.S. Healthcare Leonard Abramson. It provided the largest portion of FDD’s startup funding with a $222,523 grant in 2001. Abramson continued funding the group with an $600,000 in contributions during 2002-2004. The heirs to the Seagram liquor company fortune, Canadians Edgar M. and Charles Bronfman, gave $1,050,000 to FDD during this period. According to Think Progress, “Edgar M. Bronfman served as president of the World Jewish Congress from 1979 to 2007. Charles Bronfman, along with fellow FDD donor Michael Steinhardt , cofounded Taglit Birthright which offers free trips to Israel for young Jewish adults. Steinhardt is a hedge fund mogul who contributed $850,000 to FDD from 2001 to 2004.”

Other donors included “Home Depot cofounder Bernard Marcus who contributed $600,000 between 2001 and 2003; mortgage backed securities pioneer Lewis Ranieri contributed $350,000 between 2002 and 2004; and Ameriquest owner, and Bush administration ambassador to the Netherlands from 2006 to 2008, Roland Arnall contributed $1,802,000 between 2003 and 2004. … [M]edia mogul and Democratic Party donor Haim Saban, a surprising donor considering FDD’s Republican bent and Clifford May’s former role as an RNC spokesperson; The Israel Project director Jennifer Mizrahi; and Dalck Feith, father of former Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith .”[75]

 

SOURCES

 

[1] Mark Dubowitz, Twitter, March 6, 2018, https://twitter.com/mdubowitz/status/971075699804028928?lang=en

[2] Matthew Yglesias, Twitter, March 6, 2018, https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/971242356220493826

[3] Mike Giglio, “Iran Is Watching Silently As The Khashoggi Killing Tests US–Saudi Relations,” BuzzFeed News, October 29, 2018, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mikegiglio/iran-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-us-relations

[4] Michael Doran and Tony Badran, “Trump Is Crude. But He’s Right About Saudi Arabia,” New York Times, November 21, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/opinion/trump-saudi-arabia-khashoggi.html

[5] Clifford May, “Give anti-globalism a chance,” Washington Times, April 4, 2018, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/3/give-anti-globalism-a-chance/

[6] Howard LaFranchi, “Clinton and Trump: Foreign-policy odd couple with their parties?” Christian Science Monitor, June 10, 2016, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2016/0610/Clinton-and-Trump-Foreign-policy-odd-couple-with-their-parties

[7] Shane Dixon Kavanaugh, “Why Trump Is The ‘Perfect’ Presidential Choice For ISIS,” Vocativ, March 24, 2016, http://www.vocativ.com/news/301331/why-trump-is-the-perfect-presidential-choice-for-isis/

[8] Zack Beauchamp, “Republican foreign policy experts are condemning Trump. It matters more than you think,” Vox, August 8, 2016, https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12404602/donald-trump-republican-foreign-policy-officials-letter

[9] Michael Ledeen, “Who’s A Fascist? Not Donald Trump,” Forbes, March 10, 2016, http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/michael-ledeen-whos-a-fascist-not-donald-trump/

[10] Mitchell Plitnick, “Dire Consequences If Trump Pulls Out Of Iran Deal,” Lobelog, July 31, 2017, http://lobelog.com/dire-consequences-if-trump-pulls-out-of-iran-deal/

[11] Olli Heinonen, “Iran’s missile tests reveal weaknesses of UN Security Council Resolution,” FDD Policy Brief, February 8, 2017, http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/olli-heinonen1-irans-missile-tests-reveal-weaknesses-of-un-security-council-resolution/

[12] Ali Vaez, “The Iranian Nuclear Deal’s Sunset Clauses,” Foreign Affairs, October 3, 2017, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2017-10-03/iranian-nuclear-deals-sunset-clauses; Paul Pillar, “Iran and the Nuclear Sunset Clauses,” LobeLog, September 18, 2017, http://lobelog.com/iran-and-the-nuclear-sunset-clauses/; Kelsey Davenport, “Iran Nuclear Deal ‘Sunset’ Gets Scrutiny,” Arms Control Association, October 2017, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-10/news/iran-nuclear-deal-sunset-gets-scrutiny

[13] Reuel Marc Gerecht and Ray Takeyh, “Let Rouhani and Khamenei Fight,” Wall Street Journal, March 6, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/let-rouhani-and-khamenei-fight-1520381301?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

[14] Carol Morello, “In report card on Trump’s foreign policy, criticisms span continents and topics,” Washington Post, January 31, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-report-card-on-trumps-foreign-policy-criticisms-span-continents-and-topics/2019/01/31/0889964a-2573-11e9-81fd-b7b05d5bed90_story.html?utm_term=.17db613d63ee

[15] Clifford May, “Midterm Assessment: The Trump Administration’s Foreign and National Security Policies, Conclusion,” FDD, January 31, 2019, https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2019/01/31/trump-midterm-assessment-report/

[16] Kelly Olsen, “China’s defense spending is growing more slowly. But that doesn’t mean military tensions are easing,” CNBC, March 5, 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/china-defense-budget-slowing-growth-in-2019-military-spending-.html

[17] “2019 Defense Budget Signed by Trump,” Military Benefits, September 2018, https://militarybenefits.info/2019-defense-budget/

[18] Daniel McCarthy, “Most Favored Democracy: The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Goes on Offense,” American Conservative, November 17, 2003, http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/nov/17/00017/.

[19] John Judis, “The Little Think Tank That Could,” Slate, August 18, 2015,http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/08/foundation_for_the_defense_of_democracies_inside_the_small_pro_israel_think.html.

[20] Michael Crowley, “Trump allies push White House to consider regime change in Tehran,” Politico, June 25, 2017, https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/trump-iran-foreign-policy-regime-change-239930

[21] Ben Armbruster, “Bolton Counters Syria Withdrawal, Hires Iran Hawk,” Lobelog, January 9, 2019, https://lobelog.com/bolton-counters-syria-withdrawal-hires-iran-hawk/

[22] Daniel Larison, “The Colossal Blunder of Reneging on the JCPOA,” The National Interest, March 30, 2019, https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-colossal-blunder-of-reneging-on-the-jcpoa/

[23] Paul Pillar, “Why Bret Stephens Is Wrong About Iran,” The National Interest, April 1, 2019, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/why-bret-stephens-wrong-about-iran-50332

[24] Bonnie Kristian, “Iran sanctions aren’t a realistic path to peace,” The Hill, April 23, 2019, https://thehill.com/opinion/international/440273-iran-sanctions-arent-a-realistic-path-to-peace

[25] Mark Dubowitz, “Midterm Assessment: Iran,” FDD, January 31, 2019, https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2019/01/31/midterm-assessment-iran/

[26] Ali Vaez, “The Iranian Nuclear Deal’s Sunset Clauses,” Foreign Affairs, October 3, 2017, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2017-10-03/iranian-nuclear-deals-sunset-clauses; Paul Pillar, “Iran and the Nuclear Sunset Clauses,” LobeLog, September 18, 2017, http://lobelog.com/iran-and-the-nuclear-sunset-clauses/; Kelsey Davenport, “Iran Nuclear Deal ‘Sunset’ Gets Scrutiny,” Arms Control Association, October 2017, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-10/news/iran-nuclear-deal-sunset-gets-scrutiny

[27] Olli Heinonen, “The President’s Iran Decision: Next Steps,” Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, October 25, 2017, http://www.defenddemocracy.org/testimony/the-presidents-iran-decision-next-steps

[28] FDD, “Iran/Hezbollah Project.”

[29] FDD, “The Iran Energy Project,” http://www.iranenergyproject.org/.

[30] FDD, “Iran Human Rights Project,” http://www.defenddemocracy.org/project/iran-human-rights-project/.

[31] Emily Cadei, “The Wonks Waging Financial War on Iran,” Ozy, January 22, 2014, http://www.ozy.com/rising-stars-and-provocateurs/washingtons-iran-sanctions-brain/4912.article.

[32] Ben Hubbard, Isabel Kershner, and Anne Barnard, “Iran, Deeply Embedded in Syria,

Expands ‘Axis of Resistance,’” New York Times, February 19, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/world/middleeast/iran-syria-israel.html

[33] Robert Wright, “How the New York Times Is Making War With Iran More Likely,” The Intercept, March 17, 2018, https://theintercept.com/2018/03/17/new-york-times-iran-israel-washington-think-tanks/

[34] Richard Goldberg, “It’s time for Trump to attack Iran’s Revolutionary Guard,” New York Post, February 12, 2018, https://nypost.com/2018/02/12/its-time-for-trump-to-attack-irans-revolutionary-guard/

[35] Ali Gharib, “Who’s Dismissing the Iranian Elections,” The Daily Beast, June 17, 2013, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/17/who-s-dismissing-the-iranian-elections.html.

[36] Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz, “The Logic of Our Iran Sanctions,” Weekly Standard, January 3-10, 2011, http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/logic-our-iran-sanctions_524860.html?page=2.

[37] Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz, “The Case for Stronger Sanctions on Iran,” Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304644104579189714065263216.

[38] Mark Dubowitz, “Negotiations on Iran’s Nuclear Program,” Testimony to Senate Foreign Relations Committee, February 4, 2014, http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/negotiations-on-irans-nuclear-program/.

[39] Mark Dubowitz, “FDD Executive Director Calls on Congress to ‘Defend the Sanctions Architecture’ As Deadline Nears,” FDD, November 20, 2014, http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/dubowitz-mark-fdd-executive-director-calls-on-congress-to-defend-sanctions/.

[40] Clifford May, “Betting on Iran,” FDD, November 19, 2014, http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/betting-on-iran/.

[41] Nahal Toosi, “How a Republican president could kill the Iran deal,” POLITICO, July 14, 2015, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/gop-president-iran-deal-kill-120077.html#ixzz3gpVQ8gEY.

[42] Clifford May, “Scuttle Obama’s Iran deal, or surrender,” The Washington Times, July 21, 2015, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/21/clifford-may-scuttle-obamas-iran-deal-or-surrender/?page=all.

[43] Clifford May, “Scuttle Obama’s Iran deal, or surrender,” The Washington Times, July 21, 2015, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/21/clifford-may-scuttle-obamas-iran-deal-or-surrender/?page=all.

[44] John Judis, “The Little Think Tank That Could,” Slate, August 18, 2015,http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/08/foundation_for_the_defense_of_democracies_inside_the_small_pro_israel_think.html.

[45] John Judis, “The Little Think Tank That Could,” Slate, August 18, 2015,http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/08/foundation_for_the_defense_of_democracies_inside_the_small_pro_israel_think.html.

[46] Barbara Slavin, “US Readies New Sanctions on Iran Ahead of Talks,” Right Web, December 17, 2010, http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/us_readies_new_sanctions_on_iran_ahead_of_talks.

[47] Michael Ledeen, “We Have Met the Enemy . . .” Weekly Standard, October 20, 2009, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/095rmzre.asp.

[48] Quoted by Ben Armbruster, “GOP Megadonor’s ‘Nuke Iran’ Comments Highlight Links To Influential Think Tank,” Think Progress, October 25, 2013, http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/10/25/2836101/adelson-nuke-iran-fdd/.

[49] Jim Lobe, “Pro-Israel Hawks Take to the Airwaves,” Inter Press Service, April 26, 2002, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=18787.

[50] Jim Lobe, “About That Leak …,” Alternet, October 10, 2003, http://www.alternet.org/story/16936?page=1.

[51] Jonathan Schanzer, “Jerusalem Is Already Israel’s Capital. Trump Just Made it Official,” Fortune, December 7, 2017, http://fortune.com/2017/12/07/trump-jerusalem-speech-american-embassy-israel/

[52] “Full text: Trump and Netanyahu remarks in Davos,” Times of Israel, January 25, 2018, https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-netanyahu-trump-meeting-in-davos/ ; Donald J. Trump, Twitter, January 2, 2018, https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948322496591384576

[53] Clifford D. May, “The 100-Year-Old Promise,” Washington Times, November 1, 2017, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/31/israel-given-birth-thanks-to-international-efforts/

[54] Claudia Rosett, “The U.N. Handmaiden of Hamas,” Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, August 7, 2014, http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/claudia-rosett-the-un-handmaiden-of-hamas/.

[55] Jonathan Schanzer, Richard Goldberg, and Clifford May, “Podcast: UNRWA’s Palestinian Refugees,” Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, February 27, 2018, http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/schanzer-jonathan-podcast-unrwas-palestinian-refugees/

[56] Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “Campaign Against UN Court Hearings on Israel’s Anti-Terrorism Fence,” http://web.archive.org/web/20040423091637/http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_list.htm?topic=8745&page=2 (Web Archive).

[57] Mark Dubowitz Testimony before Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform, July 28, 2015, http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/7-28-2015%20Natl%20Security%20Hearing%20on%20BDS%20-%20Dubowitz-FDD%20Testimony.pdf.

[58] Mark Dubowitz Testimony before Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform, July 28, 2015, http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/7-28-2015%20Natl%20Security%20Hearing%20on%20BDS%20-%20Dubowitz-FDD%20Testimony.pdf.

[59] Mark Dubowitz and Jonathan Schanzer, “Palestinian Pulse,” October 2010, FDD, http://defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/palestinian-pulse-what-policymakers-can-learn-from-palestinian-social-media/.

[60] Mark Dubowitz and Jonathan Schanzer, “Palestinian Pulse,” October 2010, FDD, http://defenddemocracy.org/stuff/uploads/documents/Palestinian_Pulse.pdf. See p. 62.

[61] Spencer Ackerman, “Bipartisan Think Tank Attacks Democrats,” Washington Independent, February 26, 2008, http://washingtonindependent.com/2173/bipartisan-think-tank-attacks-democrats.

[62] Spencer Ackerman, “”Bipartisan’ Think Tank Attacks Democrats,” Washington Independent, February 26, 2008, http://washingtonindependent.com/2173/bipartisan-think-tank-attacks-democrats.

[63] Michael Isikoff, “Scare Tactics?” Newsweek, February 27, 2008, http://www.newsweek.com/2008/02/26/scare-tactics.html.

[64] Foreign Policy, Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, http://www.defenddemocracy.org/project/foreign-podicy/

[65] FDD, “The Syria Project,” http://defenddemocracy.org/project/the-syria-project.

[66] FDD, “Projects,” http://www.defenddemocracy.org/project.

[67] FDD, “National Security Trip to Israel,” http://defenddemocracy.org/project/national-security-trip-to-israel/.

[68] FDD Press Release,  “FDD, AIC, IWF to Train Iraqi Women Leaders,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies, October 27, 2004.

[69] IWEI, “Welcome to the IWEI Website,” http://www.iwei.org/.

[70] Center for Liberty in the Middle East (CLIME), http://www.mideastliberty.org/.

[71] Eli Clifton, “Home Depot founder’s quiet $10 million right-wing investment,” Salon, August 5, 2013, http://www.salon.com/2013/08/05/home_depot_founder%E2%80%99s_quiet_10_million_right_wing_investment/; JTA, “Top Jewish Republicans funding Iran sanctions think tank,” August 6, 2013, http://www.jta.org/2013/08/06/news-opinion/politics/top-jewish-republicans-fund-fdd-iran-sanctions-think-tank#ixzz2dIwvx8a4.

[72] Guidestar.org, FDD 2011 990, http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2011/134/174/2011-134174402-08d98b30-9.pdf.

[73] Eli Clifton, “Home Depot founder’s quiet $10 million right-wing investment,” Salon, August 5, 2013, http://www.salon.com/2013/08/05/home_depot_founder%E2%80%99s_quiet_10_million_right_wing_investment/.

[74] 2015 Form 990, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Guidestar, http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2015/134/174/2015-134174402-0d9284e8-9.pdf

[75] Eli Clifton, “EXCLUSIVE: Documents Shed Light On Those Underwriting The Foundation For Defense Of Democracies,” Think Progress, July 19, 2011, http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/19/271431/fdd-donors/.