FDD thinktank despises Iran, that's dangerous: Responsible Statecraft
5 Min Read
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is pushing for Tehran to acquire weapons-grade uranium to keep matters tense, according to Responsible Statecraft.
-
In this March 30, 2005 file photo, an Iranian security official in protective clothing walks through part of the Uranium Conversion Facility just outside the Iranian city of Isfahan. (AP)
In a new report, Responsible Statecraft argues that policy toward the Iranian nuclear program has been a debated topic for decades because of worry that the program would lead to an Iranian nuclear weapon. That said, the report suggests that "no pressure group has been more active and relentless in beating a drum about the awfulness of Iran than the misleadingly named Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)."
A recently published report is a reflection of the true motives and objectives of a group such as FDD. It argues that "it would be better if Iran enriched uranium to the 90 percent level — the purity needed to make a nuclear weapon — than for Iranian enrichment to remain at lower levels if that entailed a diplomatic agreement that might include any form of US sanctions relief," clearly revealing groups like the FDD's true intentions, according to Responsible Statecraft.
Furthermore, it's crucial to recognize that such an understanding would not serve as a substitute for a comprehensive agreement like the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which had restricted Iran's uranium enrichment to a minimal level until the Trump administration withdrew from the deal. According to Responsible Statecraft, while a freeze-for-freeze arrangement would not replace a comprehensive agreement, it could be a positive step to ensure nuclear nonproliferation and mitigate escalating tensions in the region.
Read next: Israelis fear speculated nuclear agreement between Iran, West
No official announcements have been made by either Washington or Tehran regarding the existence of such an understanding, as Responsible Statecraft notes. Recent reports indicate that Iran has slowed its uranium enrichment to around 60 percent and might have also down blended portions of its uranium stockpiles to lower levels. Once again, this development aligns to maintain the possibility of a comprehensive agreement for nuclear nonproliferation while managing tensions with Iran.
However, it's worth noting that FDD has a different perspective on controlling tensions with Iran. Responsible Statecraft argues that FDD aims to escalate tensions rather than control them. The prospect of Iran enriching uranium to weapons-grade would undoubtedly intensify tensions, which aligns with FDD's agenda. For FDD, the priority is to promote maximum hostility, isolation, and sanctions against Iran, even if it means keeping tensions with Tehran at a heightened state. This objective takes precedence over considerations like nuclear nonproliferation.
An Israeli think tank in disguise
FDD's underlying agenda becomes clear when we delve into its fundamental mission. Initially established under a Hebrew name, FDD's primary objective, as stated in its application for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, was to "educate and enhance Israel's perception in North America and public comprehension of matters affecting Israeli-Arab relations."
Although the organization adopted a different name, it has been committed to advocating for the policies of the Israeli Likud party, which align with the policies of successive Israeli governments, according to Responsible Statecraft.
That said, central to these policies is the promotion of animosity and distrust towards Iran, escalating tensions with Iran, and opposing any diplomatic engagement with the country, RS explained, adding that these positions have served "Israel" by weakening a regional competitor, undermining any US-Iran rapprochement, providing a convenient scapegoat for regional troubles, and diverting global attention from "Israel's" own actions.
An 'anti-Iran concern'
Previous Israeli governments, including under Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership, emphasized the nuclear issue as a significant anti-Iran concern. When the JCPOA was implemented, effectively curbing potential pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon, Netanyahu never acknowledged the agreement's success. Instead, he shifted focus to other supposed Iranian misconduct, trying to extract political gain from past nuclear activities that the JCPOA and other events had already addressed.
According to Responsible Statecraft, FDD not only applauded the Trump administration's abandonment of the JCPOA, which had effectively constrained Iran's nuclear program, but also encouraged the administration to pursue regime change in Iran, adding that the FDD has mirrored the Israeli government's stance on Iran-related matters.
FDD's "diplomatic" views
The FDD's opposition to any diplomacy with Iran extends to a recent prisoner swap agreement that would release unjustly detained Americans and unfreeze Iranian assets for humanitarian purposes, according to Responsible Statecraft.
On that note, critics of the agreement raised concerns about fungibility, implying that eased humanitarian burdens would free up funds for "malicious activities". However, Responsible Statecraft suggests that this assumption contradicts observations of humanitarian needs in Iran and misrepresents the Iranian government's resource allocation.
Read next: Netanyahu accusing Iran 'extremely shameful', Israeli media say
FDD's disingenuous tactics and alignment with foreign interests warrant scrutiny, RS said. It further continued that the FDD's involvement in discussions concerning US interests without transparently disclosing its true affiliations is problematic, as a sincere debate should address whether prolonged conflict and tension with Iran, while avoiding diplomacy, serve US interests.
Moreover, escalated tensions pose risks to US personnel and regional stability, hinder diplomatic opportunities, and heighten the potential for destructive confrontations.
On that note, the report suggests that manipulating nuclear nonproliferation for ulterior motives, especially to cater to a foreign regime's rhetoric, is irresponsible.
"Anyone who manipulates the issue of nuclear nonproliferation in the service of some other objective — especially an objective such as serving the rhetorical, attention-diverting needs of a foreign regime — deserves to be roundly condemned for doing so."
