The intersection of private advocacy and public policy has reached a new milestone in Washington, DC, as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) cements its role as a primary architect of the United States’ strategy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. Recent developments, including the appointment of high-ranking FDD alumni to the Trump administration’s negotiating team and the White House’s public endorsement of FDD-generated data, signal a significant shift in how American foreign policy is being formulated. This transition comes at a period of heightened regional volatility, characterized by a global energy crisis and the collapse of previous diplomatic frameworks.
The influence of the FDD was underscored last week when the White House’s official rapid response account on X utilized a graphic from the think tank to bolster its narrative regarding Iranian nuclear activity. The post claimed that Tehran’s uranium enrichment had accelerated due to the loosening of sanctions under the administration of former President Joe Biden. However, nuclear monitoring data and historical records indicate a more complex reality: Iran’s enrichment was strictly capped at 3.67 percent under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It was only after the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the deal in 2018 that Tehran began to systematically breach those limits, eventually reaching enrichment levels near 60 percent, significantly closer to the 90 percent threshold required for weapons-grade material.
The Appointment of Nick Stewart and the New Negotiating Team
The most direct evidence of the FDD’s influence is the recent appointment of Nick Stewart to the Office of the Special Envoy for Peace Missions. Stewart, who previously served as the managing director of advocacy at FDD Action—the organization’s lobbying arm—will now serve on the U.S. negotiating team alongside envoy Steve Witkoff. Stewart is not a career diplomat; his professional background is rooted in hawkish advocacy and legislative maneuvering.
During his tenure at FDD Action, Stewart was a vocal proponent of "maximum pressure," arguing that the U.S. should leverage tactical military and economic victories into a "decisive strategic outcome." In a January 2026 policy brief, Stewart suggested that the window for action against Iran was open, urging the administration to move beyond "red lines" and exert direct pressure on the regime’s nuclear infrastructure. His appointment has raised concerns among proponents of traditional diplomacy, who argue that his presence may preclude the possibility of "good faith" negotiations. Stewart himself has publicly dismissed the notion that any figure within the Iranian government, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, can be an honest broker, labeling the entire administration as "theocratic, tyrannical, and authoritarian."
The Evolution of the FDD: From EMET to Policy Powerhouse
To understand the FDD’s current standing, one must look back to its origins in 2001. Initially incorporated as EMET (the Hebrew word for "truth") by three prominent pro-Israel donors, the organization was founded in the wake of the second Palestinian Intifada. Its original stated mission, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service, was to "provide education to enhance Israel’s image in North America."
Following the September 11 attacks, the organization rebranded as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Over the next two decades, it transformed from a media-monitoring group into a sophisticated policy shop. By the time the JCPOA was being negotiated in 2015, the FDD had become the primary source of "intellectual firepower" for those opposing the deal. While other groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) focused on grassroots mobilization and campaign financing, the FDD specialized in providing "crisp talking points" and detailed sanctions proposals to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Today, the FDD occupies a unique niche. It presents itself as a nonpartisan think tank, yet its lobbying arm, FDD Action, spent $150,000 in the first quarter of 2025 alone. This funding was directed toward lobbying for Iran sanctions legislation, U.S. arms sales to Israel, and the United States-Israel Defense Partnership Act of 2025. The organization offers "no-cost" legislative drafting assistance and private briefings to officials, effectively acting as an external policy department for the federal government.
A Network of Israeli Intelligence and Military Expertise
A defining characteristic of the FDD is its deep bench of former Israeli military and intelligence officials. This has led to accusations that the think tank serves as a conduit for Israeli security perspectives into the American mainstream.
Key figures within the organization include:
- Jacob Nagel: A senior fellow who served as Israel’s acting National Security Adviser and led the Israeli team negotiating against the Iran nuclear deal. He also served in Unit 8200, Israel’s signals intelligence division.
- Eyal Hulata: A senior international fellow who served as Israel’s National Security Adviser from 2021 to 2023, following a lengthy career in the Mossad.
- Jonathan Conricus: A former international spokesperson for the Israeli military (IDF) with experience as a combat commander in Lebanon and Gaza.
- Tal Kelman: A retired Israeli major-general who previously headed strategic planning for the Israeli Air Force.
The presence of these individuals ensures that the FDD’s policy recommendations are closely aligned with the Israeli government’s regional worldview. The FDD’s own "Israel Program" explicitly states that "Israel is America’s most valuable, reliable, and vulnerable ally" and that "the vast majority of Israel’s enemies are America’s enemies." This alignment extends to the characterization of regional actors; the FDD frequently labels Qatar and Turkey as "Muslim Brotherhood-aligned" countries that advance an "anti-Israel agenda."
Chronology of Influence: 2015–2025
The trajectory of the FDD’s influence can be traced through several key milestones over the last decade:
- 2015: FDD CEO Mark Dubowitz testifies extensively against the JCPOA, providing the technical framework for future "snapback" sanctions.
- 2018: President Donald Trump withdraws from the Iran nuclear deal, adopting the "maximum pressure" strategy long advocated by FDD experts.
- 2019: Iran officially sanctions the FDD and Mark Dubowitz, accusing them of "economic terrorism."
- 2020: FDD senior advisor Richard Goldberg joins the National Security Council, where he helps coordinate the expansion of sanctions targeting the Iranian economy.
- 2024 (October): Nick Stewart, then of FDD Action, speaks at the Vandenberg Coalition, urging the U.S. to abandon the narrative that Iranian "reformers" exist.
- 2025 (Q1): FDD Action spends $150,000 lobbying the U.S. government on defense and sanctions legislation.
- 2026 (January): Stewart publishes a call for "decisive strategic outcomes" against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
- 2026 (May): The White House appoints Nick Stewart to the Iran negotiating team, signaling a merger of FDD advocacy and official U.S. diplomacy.
Broader Implications and the Global Energy Crisis
The integration of FDD policy into the Trump administration comes at a moment of extreme geopolitical tension. Following Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iranian targets on February 28, 2026, the region has teetered on the brink of total war. Iran’s response—the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz—has triggered a global energy crisis. As nearly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply passes through this narrow waterway, the closure has sent shockwaves through international markets, leading to record-high fuel prices and economic instability in both the West and East.
In this context, the FDD’s "guilty as charged" attitude toward being the "designing and executing arm" of U.S. Iran policy carries significant weight. Critics argue that by staffing negotiating teams with individuals who have spent years advocating for military pressure and the "ending of the Islamic Republic," the administration may be closing the door on any off-ramp to the current crisis.
Proponents of the FDD’s approach, however, maintain that the previous decade of diplomacy failed to curb Iran’s regional ambitions or its nuclear progress. They argue that the only way to achieve a "peace mission" is through a position of overwhelming strength, utilizing the "intellectual firepower" of those who understand the Iranian regime’s internal mechanics most intimately.
Analysis of Policy Convergence
The appointment of Nick Stewart and the broader reliance on FDD data represent a "revolving door" between think tanks and government that has become increasingly common in Washington, yet rarely with such specific focus on a single foreign adversary. The FDD’s ability to repackage Israeli security concerns as American national security imperatives has been highly successful.
By framing the conflict not just as a regional dispute but as a "defense of democracy" against a "theocratic tyranny," the FDD has provided the moral and intellectual framework for a policy that prioritizes regime destabilization over containment. As the U.S. negotiating team engages with Tehran amidst a global energy crisis, the influence of the FDD ensures that the "maximum pressure" of the past is not merely a memory, but the foundation of the current administration’s future strategy.
Whether this approach will lead to the "decisive strategic outcome" Stewart envisions or a prolonged regional conflagration remains the central question facing Washington and the international community. For now, the lines between the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the U.S. State Department continue to blur, creating a unified front in the escalating confrontation with Iran.