Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Iranian-targets officer in the Central Intelligence Agency, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Mark Dubowitz, sanctioned by Iran in 2019, is the CEO.


=================================================================     6656 view/day    3833 View/day



Council on Foreign Relations

Its membership has included senior politicians, more than a dozen Secretaries of State, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors, and senior media figures.


National Endowment for Democracy

It is funded primarily through an annual allocation from the U.S. Congress, within the budget of USAID, the U.S. agency for development assistance, which is part of the U.S. State Department.


United States Agency for International Development

USAID engineered a subversive program using social media aimed at fueling political unrest in Cuba to overthrow the Cuban government. On 3 April 2014 the Associated Press published an investigative report bringing to light how USAID was behind the creation of a social networking text messaging service aimed at creating political dissent and trigger an uprising against the Cuban government.[5] The name of the messaging network was called ZunZuneo, which is Cuban slang for a hummingbird’s tweet


RAND Corporation

is a nonprofit global policy think tank formed to offer research and analysis to the United States armed forces by Douglas Aircraft Company. It is financed by the U.S. government and private endowment, corporations


Heritage Foundation

is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage’s stated mission is to “formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense

It was a leading proponent of Operation Desert Storm against Iraq, and according to Frank Starr, head of the Baltimore Sun’s Washington bureau, the foundation’s studies, “laid much of the groundwork for Bush administration thinking” about post-Soviet foreign policy

Heritage is not required to disclose its donors and donations to the foundation are tax-deductible.

American Enterprise Institute

AEI’s foreign and defense policy studies department, directed by Danielle Pletka, is the part of the institute most commonly associated with neoconservatism,[9] especially by its critics.[61][62] Prominent foreign-policy neoconservatives at AEI include Richard Perle, Gary Schmitt, and Paul Wolfowitz. John Bolton, often said to be a neoconservative,[63][64] has said that he is not one, as his primary focus is on American interests, not democracy promotion.[65][66] Joshua Muravchik and Michael Ledeen spent many years at AEI, although they departed at around the same time as Reuel Marc Gerecht in 2008 in what was rumored to be a “purge” of neoconservatives at the institute, possibly “signal[ing] the end of [neoconservatism’s] domination over the think tank over the past several decades”,[67] although Muravchik later said it was the result of personality and management conflicts

AEI is the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism, in both the domestic and international policy arenas.[9] Irving Kristol, widely considered a father of neoconservatism, was a senior fellow at AEI (arriving from the Congress for Cultural Freedom following the widespread revelation of the group’s CIA funding)[10] and many prominent neoconservatives—including Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, and Joshua Muravchik—spent the bulk of their careers at AEI.[4] However, AEI is not officially neoconservative.

AEI enjoyed close ties to the George W. Bush administration.[26] More than twenty AEI scholars served in the administration, and Bush addressed the institute on three occasions. “I admire AEI a lot–I’m sure you know that,” Bush said. “After all, I have been consistently borrowing some of your best people.”[27] Cabinet officials also frequented AEI. In 2002, Danielle Pletka joined AEI to raise the profile of the foreign policy department, especially its Middle East studies program. AEI and several of its scholars—including Michael Ledeen and Richard Perle—became associated with the origins of the Iraq war.[28] In 2006-2007, AEI scholars, including Frederick W. Kagan, provided a strategic framework for the “surge” in Iraq.


Brookings Institution

The 21st Century Defense Initiative (21CDI) is aimed at producing research, analysis, and outreach that address three core issues: the future of war, the future of U.S. defense needs and priorities, and the future of the U.S. defense system.

Some liberals argue, however, that despite its left-of-center reputation, Brookings foreign policy scholars were overly supportive of Bush administration policies abroad.

Similarly, Brookings fellow and research director Benjamin Wittes is a member of the conservative Hoover Institution‘s Task Force on National Security and Law.[34] Brookings scholars have served in Republican and Democratic administrations, including Mark McClellan,[35] Ron Haskins[36] and Martin Indyk.[37][38]

Its largest contributors include the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband Richard C. Blum, Bank of America, ExxonMobil, Pew Charitable Trusts, the MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Qatar, the Republic of China and the District of Columbia.

Distinguished Fellow Itamar Rabinovich served as Israel’s ambassador to the United States.


Center for Strategic and International Studies

Leadership and Staff
The Chairman of the Board of Trustees is Sam Nunn, a former Democratic Senator from Georgia and longtime chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense John J. Hamre has been the president and chief executive officer of CSIS since April 2000.

The board of trustees includes many former senior government officials including Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Cohen, George Argyros and Brent Scowcroft. The board also includes major corporate business leaders as well as prominent figures in the fields of finance, private equity, real estate, academia and media.

Current projects

  • Burke Chair in Strategy
  • Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
  • Defense and National Security Group
  • Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
  • Harold Brown Chair in Defense Policy Studies
  • Henry A. Kissinger Chair in Diplomacy and National Security
  • Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Program
  • International Security Program

The sources were: 27% corporate, 27% foundation, 21% government, 11% individuals, 4% endowment, 10% other. CSIS had operating expenses of US $33.1 million for 2012, 77% for programs, 17% for administration, and 6% for development.



Not analyzed yet 🙂
Hudson Institute
Hoover Institution
Progress and Freedom Foundation
Manhattan Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Family Research Council

National Center for Policy Analysis

Cato Institute
Reason Foundation


Washington Center for Near East Policy
Freedom Forum
Economic Strategy Institute
Carnegie Endowment
Institute for International Economics
Progressive Policy Institute


Urban Institute


Freedom house


Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Board of Advisors[edit]

As of August 26, 2014 the Washington Institute’s Board of Advisors included:[40]

“the fiercest of the enemies of the Arabs and the Muslims,” and describing it as the “most important Zionist propaganda tool in the United States.”[

“part of the core” of the Israel lobby in the United States


To understand this watch the third season of House of Cards 🙂



Victims of Iranian Censorship Act

Free Expression, Globalism, and the New Strategic Communication,Cambridge University Press, By Monroe E. Price

– The Washington Times – Sunday, July 26, 2009

Targeting the repressive methods of what one senator called a “cruel regime,” the U.S. Senate has authorized up to $50 million to help Iranians evade their government’s attempts to censor the Internet and to pressure foreign corporations not to help Iran clamp down on communication.

The Victim of Iranian Censorship, or VOICE, Act, was added to the Senate’s defense-authorization bill Thursday evening as a response to mass protests following Iran’s disputed June 12 presidential elections and amid concerns that Western companies have sold Iran technology used to monitor dissidents.

Internet-based tools such as Facebook and Twitter have become the key means for Iranians to communicate with each other and the outside world about protests over what many regard as a fraudulent victory by incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


The U.S. legislation would require President Obama to issue a report on “non-Iranian companies, including corporations with U.S. subsidiaries, that have aided the Iranian government’s Internet censorship efforts.”

Such identification would make it easier to pressure firms to cease such business with Iran.

The Washington Times reported in April that Nokia Siemens Networks had sold Iran’s telecom company a “monitoring center.” The product’s promotional material says the center can sort and catalogue phone calls, e-mails and other Web communications. The portion of the business that deals with the monitoring center was sold at the end of March to a private German holding company, but the bad publicity has caused potential problems for Siemens business in the U.S.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board voted Thursday to delay a vote on whether to renew a contract with an Italian company, Ansaldobreda, to build rail cars for the city’s expanding subway system. Siemens, the main competitor for the deal, stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars if the board rejects the Italian company’s bid.

Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and a sponsor of the VOICE Act, said Friday, “The Iranian government has taken numerous steps to stop these citizens from communicating with each other and with the outside world. As this cruel regime works to close off Iranian society, the VOICE Act, by providing assistance for broadcasting and new Internet and communications technologies, will help to open it up.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent Democrat of Connecticut and co-sponsor of the legislation, said the act “will help the Iranian people stay one step ahead of their regime, in getting access to information and safely exercising freedom of speech, assembly and expression online.”

The $50 million in the Senate bill was not in the House version and will have to be worked out in negotiations between the chambers. If it survives, the money would then have to be appropriated in spending bills to come.

The U.S. government in the past has put a relatively small amount of resources into training Iranians in anti-censorship methods and developing Web protocols for overcoming filtering.

For example, the Voice of America broadcasting service has an office devoted to anti-filtering and anti-censorship technology, but its total budget is less than $5 million. It has invested in a Farsi-language version of the Web browser Firefox embedded with Tor, a program originally developed by the U.S. Navy, which cloaks the user’s Web browsing from state monitors.

An additional $30 million for anti-censorship programs has been approved by a Senate subcommittee that funds the State Department and is awaiting a full vote on the Senate floor.

The VOICE Act would authorize $20 million for what it calls an Iranian Electronic Education, Exchange and Media Fund. A further $30 million is authorized for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the government body that oversees operations for the Voice of America as well as Radio Farda, a channel that broadcasts in Farsi. The bill would also give the Obama administration flexibility to transfer these funds to other agencies within the federal government.

In many ways, the new emphasis on anti-censorship technology is a break from prior legislation aimed at promoting democracy in Iran.

The Bush administration unveiled in 2006 a $30 million democracy program for Iran. Later it added an additional $60 million, most of which remains unspent, in part because it has been difficult to find ways to channel the funds to Iranians without exposing them to government retribution.

In the aftermath of the Iranian elections, however, circumstances have changed.

“There is a growing amount of money available for Web circumvention and activism,” Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, told The Times.

“So when there is money, people will come, and you are seeing a lot of companies retooling themselves to become circumvention providers.”


Since 11 April 2023: 1,094 total views,  5 views today