How FDD is pushing for a nuclear nightmare in the Middle East

Imagine a group of people who claim to be experts on Iran, but actually work to advance a specific agenda aimed at sabotaging any chance for peace and cooperation between Washington and Tehran. Imagine that this group has millions of dollars to spend on lobbying, propaganda, and influence campaigns in Washington, and that they had close ties to some of the most powerful and hawkish officials in the Trump administration. Imagine that this group is pushing for a war with Iran, a war that could have catastrophic consequences for the US, the region, and the world. Now imagine that this group pays its hawkish CEO at least $730,377 and its president at least $659,892.

Sounds like a nightmare, right?

Well, this group is not a figment of your imagination. It is very real, and it is called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). FDD is a Washington-based think tank that masquerades as a nonpartisan and independent research organization, but in reality, it is a mouthpiece for the Israeli right wing and its aggressive agenda against Iran.

FDD has been exposed by Al Jazeera as a partner of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic. Affairs. FDD has also received funding from right-wing “pro-Israel” donors and foundations, such as Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, and Paul Singer. FDD’s lavish spending on its top executives (per its 2021 IRS Form 990), such as CEO Mark Dubowitz and President Clifford May, who earn far more than their counterparts at other think tanks in Washington, DC, also raises questions about accountability and transparency at the hawkish organization.

FDD’s policy positions are virtually indistinguishable from those of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, whether it is on Iran’s nuclear program, Palestinian rights, or the Israeli occupation.

Moreover, while FDD claims to be a champion of democracy, it has unsurprisingly turned a blind eye to the democratic crisis unfolding in Israel, one of the US’s closest allies. FDD and its staff seem to have nothing to say about the massive protests in Israel against Netanyahu’s attempt to undermine the judiciary and the rule of law. The proposed judicial reform would grant Netanyahu immunity from prosecution and allow him to appoint judges loyal to him, effectively ending any checks and balances in the Israeli system and threatening the democratic rights of Jewish citizens of Israel. The protests have been met with violence and intimidation from Netanyahu’s supporters, and have drawn warnings from Israel’s president and ousted Tel Aviv chief of police that the country is heading towards a civil war.

Yet, FDD and its staff are silent on this crisis, perhaps owing their close ties to the Israeli right wing.

FDD was also instrumental in shaping the Trump administration’s disastrous Iran policy, which abandoned diplomacy and multilateralism in favor of escalation and confrontation with Tehran. FDD’s CEO Mark Dubowitz and senior fellow Richard Goldberg were among the loudest cheerleaders for Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) and to impose crippling sanctions on Iran. They have also called for regime change in Iran, either through covert action or military intervention.

FDD’s influence was seen in the actions and statements of key figures in the White House, such as former national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who have echoed FDD’s rhetoric and recommendations on Iran. Goldberg himself served in Trump’s National Security Council under Bolton.

Against this backdrop, I wanted to review and rebut a recent article published in The Hill by Anthony Ruggiero, Senior Director at FDD’s Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program, and Andrea Stricker, the Deputy Director of the same program. The two put forward a nonsensical proposal for US-Saudi nuclear cooperation that is deeply flawed and unrealistic, and that will surely accelerate the development of both the Saudi and Iranian nuclear programs.

Predictably, the article centers on the US dangerously escalating against Iran. Their article is based on two false premises: First, that the US can persuade Saudi Arabia to accept its nonproliferation conditions, such as renouncing uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing; and second, that reimposing UN sanctions on Iran will assuage Saudi Arabia’s worries about its regional rival.

However, the facts on the ground contradict these assumptions. Saudi Arabia has made it clear that it will not relinquish its NPT right to enrich uranium or reprocess spent fuel, and that it wants full nuclear fuel cycle capabilities. It is also pursuing nuclear cooperation with other countries, such as Russia and China, that are less likely to impose the same nonproliferation restrictions as the US.

Ruggiero and Stricker are out of touch with the current regional and global context when they suggest that the US can impose its terms on a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia. The US-Saudi relationship has undergone significant changes in recent years, and Riyadh has more leverage to resist US pressure and pursue its own interests.

Notably, MbS has also made normalization with Israel contingent on the US granting nuclear concessions, including enrichment, which is something that the Israeli security establishment strongly opposes (and of course Ruggiero and Stricker also oppose in this article).

Ruggiero and Stricker also fail to recognize that reimposing UN sanctions on Iran would not only be ineffective, but also counterproductive. Iran has already reduced its compliance with the JCPOA in response to the US withdrawal from the deal and the reimposition of unilateral sanctions. Iran is now threatening to leave the NPT and accelerate its nuclear program if UN sanctions lifted under the JCPOA are reimposed.

Reimposing UN sanctions would further isolate Iran and almost assuredly push it to accelerate its nuclear program, which would in turn increase Saudi Arabia’s sense of insecurity and desire to match Iran’s capabilities.

As such, Ruggiero and Stricker’s proposal is not only unrealistic, but also dangerous. It would undermine the existing nonproliferation regime, destabilize the regional security environment, and increase the chances of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

This would follow the pattern of FDD’s previous policy recommendations towards the Middle East, which have consistently failed to achieve their objectives, and have instead brought the US closer to a catastrophic war with Iran, a war that FDD has long desired and subtly pushed for.