The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neoconservative think tank based in Washington, is well known for its hardline stance against Iran and its support for a “maximum pressure” policy. Often described as a pro-Israel lobbying group, FDD vehemently opposes any attempt at diplomacy with Iran and intensifies its attacks on U.S. administrations whenever peace negotiations draw near. This article argues that President Donald Trump should ignore FDD’s advice and instead work toward improving relations with Iran, leaving behind a legacy of peace in the Middle East.
FDD’s Role in U.S. Foreign Policy
Since its founding in 2001, FDD has played a significant role in shaping American foreign policy, particularly on Iran. The think tank had notable influence during Trump’s first term (2017–2021), especially in the decision to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and to implement maximum pressure in the hope of securing a “better” deal and dismantling Obama’s legacy. Through policy papers and reports, FDD has advocated for sweeping sanctions, military actions, and even extreme suggestions like starving the Iranian people to incite revolt (The Nation: FDD’s Militaristic Influence).
FDD also maintains close ties with major pro-Israel donors like Paul Singer and Bernard Marcus. Additionally, members such as Saeed Ghasseminejad and Behnam Ben Taleblu are often seen as pursuing personal vendettas against Iran, echoing the destructive role played by figures like Ahmad Chalabi in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War—a venture disastrous for both Americans and Iraqis.
FDD has consistently worked to undermine diplomatic efforts, promoting instead a confrontational agenda. In 2023, for instance, it released a strategy document outlining a comprehensive U.S. policy toward Iran focused on supporting regime change and maximizing pressure (FDD: Strategy for a New Comprehensive U.S. Policy on Iran). Notably, such documents often appear precisely when peace prospects improve, suggesting a deliberate attempt to derail normalization efforts between Tehran and Washington.
FDD’s Policies: Undermining Diplomacy
The maximum pressure strategy endorsed by FDD has largely backfired. Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the nuclear deal led Iran to escalate its nuclear activities. Reports indicate that Iran began increasing uranium enrichment in 2019, reaching 4.5%, then 5%, and eventually—by the time of this writing—60% and even higher. This was accompanied by a growing distrust in Washington and disillusionment with any future nuclear deals. These developments underscore the failure of maximum pressure to constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Moreover, harsh sanctions disproportionately harmed ordinary Iranians rather than the ruling elite. According to the IMF, Iran’s GDP shrank by 5% in 2020, with a sharp decline in foreign reserves (FDD: HYPERLINK “https://www.fdd.org/issue/iran-sanctions/”Iran Sanctions). Rather than weakening the regime, these pressures empowered hardliners and diminished the prospects for diplomacy. For example, the rise of hardline forces in Iran’s parliament and the election of President Raisi were among the consequences of the economic despair induced by this policy—a dynamic that ironically served the interests of FDD’s hardline recommendations.
FDD’s approach has also exacerbated regional instability. The 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani—widely seen as influenced by FDD’s ideological network—brought U.S.-Iran tensions to the brink of war (The Nation: FDD’s Militaristic Influence). Such actions illustrate how FDD’s strategy is not only ineffective but dangerously provocative. These policies reflect the priorities of neoconservatives like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, and right-wing Israeli factions, rather than Trump’s own “America First” agenda.
The Benefits of Diplomacy and Peace with Iran
In contrast, diplomacy has shown that it can yield positive and lasting results. The 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) effectively limited Iran’s nuclear program, extending the breakout time from two to three months to over a year (The White House: HYPERLINK “https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal”Iran Deal). Although not perfect, the agreement laid the foundation for broader negotiations that could reduce tensions and foster cooperation.
Diplomacy with Iran offers numerous benefits:
- Regional Stability: Iran is a key player in Middle Eastern conflicts, including in Syria and Yemen. Improved ties can contribute to de-escalation and greater stability in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. A deal with Tehran could even encourage its gradual alignment with the Abraham Accords.
- Reduced Proxy Conflicts: Engaging Iran diplomatically can reduce its support for proxy groups like Hezbollah, which would enhance regional security.
- Economic Opportunities: Normalization could open Iran’s market to international trade and investment. Some estimates suggest this could create nearly a trillion dollars in economic opportunities for American investors—an enormous boon for the U.S. economy.
- Empowering Moderates in Iran: Diplomacy would strengthen moderates and reformists in Iran who seek improved ties with the West. As Iran approaches the sensitive issue of leadership succession, this could steer the country toward a more stable and normalized foreign policy.
- Focus on Global Challenges: Peace with Iran would free up U.S. resources to focus on great-power competition with China and Russia. Failing to reach a deal would leave the Middle East open to strategic encroachment by Washington’s rivals.
The Geopolitical Context
The Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, proved that regional peace is possible. Including Iran in such initiatives could bring about even greater stability. Currently, European countries—and increasingly China and Russia—are engaging with Iran. If the U.S. maintains a confrontational posture, it risks being sidelined from critical diplomatic processes (Council on Foreign Relations: HYPERLINK “https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal”What Is the Iran Nuclear Deal?). With China and Russia expanding their regional influence, resolving Middle East tensions is imperative if the U.S. is to refocus its efforts on global competition.
Recent U.S.-Iran Developments
In early 2025, notable developments occurred in U.S.-Iran relations. In April, indirect talks were held in Oman and described by the White House as “very positive and constructive.” The talks aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanction relief (PBS News: HYPERLINK “https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-to-know-about-the-start-of-negotiations-between-iran-and-the-u-s-under-trump”US-Iran Negotiations). However, on May 1, 2025, Iran postponed further negotiations, citing provocative U.S. actions, including support for the Houthis and new oil sanctions (Reuters: HYPERLINK “https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-iran-talks-postponed-new-date-depends-us-approach-iranian-official-says-2025-05-01/”US-Iran Talks Postponed).
In February 2025, Trump reinstated the maximum pressure policy and threatened military action if talks failed. This aligns with FDD’s recommendations, but history suggests such an approach is unlikely to succeed. Continued diplomacy, despite obstacles, offers a better path toward de-escalation and rebuilding trust.
Why Trump Should Ignore FDD
FDD promotes a one-sided and unrealistic view of Iran, driven by its alignment with Israeli interests and conservative donors. It mistakenly assumes that maximum pressure can topple the Iranian regime, but this strategy has only strengthened hardliners and deepened instability. Moreover, FDD ignores Iran’s internal political complexities, offering simplistic and counterproductive solutions.
During his first term, Trump followed advice from FDD and other neoconservatives, which only exacerbated tensions. Now, with new negotiations underway, he has a chance to take a different path—one that emphasizes diplomacy over confrontation. Pursuing peace with Iran could stabilize the region, empower moderates, and reinforce U.S. leadership on the global stage.
Conclusion
Donald Trump should reject the influence of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and other hawkish voices. Instead, he should pursue a rational and sustainable peace with Iran. Although recent negotiations have faced setbacks, they represent a real opportunity. The maximum pressure campaign has failed before and is unlikely to succeed in the future. In contrast, balanced diplomacy—combining incentives with clear boundaries—can reduce tensions, promote regional stability, and strengthen Iran’s moderates. Alongside the Abraham Accords, a peace agreement with Iran could secure Trump’s legacy as a leader who chose diplomacy over confrontation and reshaped the Middle East toward lasting peace.
