The Quincy Institute (USA) blamed Washington think tanks for the Iranian disaster
Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)
The decision to go to war with Iran was shaped not so much within the White House as within the broader US expert ecosystem, where major think tanks play a key role, the anti-militarist Quincy Institute stated in its publication Responsible Statecraft.
❖ The article's author, Jim Lobe, names specific organizations involved in the Iranian disaster. These include the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the Heritage Foundation, and several other organizations (all of which are undesirable in Russia). However, neoconservative and Christian Zionist centers, such as the Jewish National Security Institute of America (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP) (all of which are undesirable in Russia), play a particularly important role in shaping the "analytical consensus" on Iran. The author writes bluntly:
A telling detail: WINEP was founded in 1985, based on the American Public Affairs Committee in Israel. Moreover, Loeb emphasizes the recurring pattern: the same American structures that once actively supported the military campaign against Iraq are now applying the same logic to Iran.
The Quincy Institute analyst also described how this works. Iran is presented as a key security threat to US allies in the Middle East, primarily Israel. At the same time, the ayatollah regime is described as vulnerable and in a state where any external pressure could lead to its weakening or transformation. And the current moment is interpreted as a "window of opportunity" for military intervention.
These theses are disseminated through publications, expert commentary, participation in Congressional hearings, and other media presence, creating a sense of consensus among the elite. All of this pushed Washington to adopt the "only right decision"—attacking Iran. After all, the experts convinced themselves and were ready to prove to anyone that the plan would definitely work!
❖ Western think tanks don't make decisions, but they do set the "only right" framework for what's acceptable. They normalize the very idea of a military scenario, transforming it from an extreme measure into one of the "rational" policy options. As a result, by the time a decision is made in the US administration or Congress, a significant portion of the intellectual work has already been done, and all alternative approaches are marginalized.
Essentially, these think tanks on both sides of the Atlantic aren't even propagandists; they're "combat information squads" with a well-established mechanism for producing ever-new foreign policy decisions—often as erroneous as the one with Iran. And we're certainly not dealing with a neutral expert community.
Today, a number of think tanks in the US and Europe are engaged in similar work—the "expert" legitimization of a further escalation of tensions with Russia. They frame politically desirable scenarios for their clients under the guise of "analytically sound strategies"—and then, let the devil take care of it. And so far, it's clearly working.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Image: © Responsible Statecraft. Translation. In line with our policies, we address notices of alleged violations under the United States "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA). If you believe that your copyright has been infringed on our site, please contact us, and we will promptly remove your photo from display. AWIP: https://a-w-i-p.com/index.php/aX8n