The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Perle's network ... and Iran's Pahlavi?

More info follows regarding the network of hawks linked to U.S. Defense
Department official Richard Perle (see also ...

Brian Whitaker of The Guardian notes that the public appearances of most of
Perle's associates are brokered by a single representative (theatrical agent),
Eleana Benador.  Benador's client-list is a who's-who of the attack-Iraq crowd,
including Perle, Khidhir Hamza, Charles Krauthammer, Kanan Makiya, Judith
Miller, Laurie Mylroie, A.M. Rosenthal, Michael Rubin, Richard O. Spertzel, and
James Woolsey.  (William Safire, wherefore art?)

Given Benador's role near the center of Perle's circle, one wonders about the
implications of the following photos
( apparently taken at a meeting that
>> US Senator Joseph Lieberman (former Al Gore running-mate and increasingly
intemperate hawk),
>> anti-Arab ideologue Daniel Pipes,
>> attack-Iraq PR flack Eleana Benador,
>> and - inexplicably - Reza Pahlavi, the former Crown Prince of Iran.
(Adding absurdity to inexplicability, the photos are posted on the vanity
website of a Philadelphia-area realtor active in Middle East politics.)

The 'spy-novelist within' wants to know ...  Is the RETURN OF THE SHAH another
option to be considered against the Axis-of-Evil; and what are the implications
relative to Iraq?

National Review columnist Michael Ledeen recently wrote of an Iranian
groundswell for the return of Reza Pahlavi.

Did I mention than Ledeen is a client of Eleana Benador?


Drew Hamre
Golden Valley, MN USA

[1] Photos of Senator Lieberman with Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, Eleana Benador,
and Daniel Pipes:

[2] Eleana Benador's website, client listing:

[3] Former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi's website:

[4] Michael Ledeen's article about the Pahlavi groundswell:

[5] Brian Whitaker's article about Richard Perle:,7792,777100,00.html

US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy

Brian Whitaker reports on the network of research institutes whose views and TV
appearances are supplanting all other experts on Middle Eastern issues

Monday August 19, 2002

A little-known fact about Richard Perle, the leading advocate of hardline
policies at the Pentagon, is that he once wrote a political thriller. The book,
appropriately called Hard Line, is set in the days of the cold war with the
Soviet Union. Its hero is a male senior official at the Pentagon, working late
into the night and battling almost single-handedly to rescue the US from liberal
wimps at the state department who want to sign away America's nuclear deterrent
in a disarmament deal with the Russians.

Ten years on Mr Perle finds himself cast in the real-life role of his fictional
hero - except that the Russians are no longer a threat, so he has to make do
with the Iraqis, the Saudis and terrorism in general.

In real life too, Mr Perle is not fighting his battle single-handed. Around him
there is a cosy and cleverly-constructed network of Middle East "experts" who
share his neo-conservative outlook and who pop up as talking heads on US
television, in newspapers, books, testimonies to congressional committees, and
at lunchtime gatherings in Washington.

The network centres on research institutes - thinktanks that attempt to
influence government policy and are funded by tax-deductible gifts from
unidentified donors.

When he is not too busy at the Pentagon, or too busy running Hollinger Digital -
part of the group that publishes the Daily Telegraph in Britain - or at board
meetings of the Jerusalem Post, Mr Perle is "resident fellow" at one of the
thinktanks - the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Mr Perle's close friend and political ally at AEI is David Wurmser, head of its
Middle East studies department. Mr Perle helpfully wrote the introduction to Mr
Wurmser's book, Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein.

Mr Wurmser's wife, Meyrav, is co-founder, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon,
formerly of Israeli military intelligence - of the Middle East Media Research
Institute (Memri), which specialises in translating and distributing articles
that show Arabs in a bad light.

She also holds strong views on leftwing Israeli intellectuals, whom she regards
as a threat to Israel (see "Selective Memri", Guardian Unlimited, August 12,

Ms Wurmser currently runs the Middle East section at another thinktank - the
Hudson Institute, where Mr Perle recently joined the board of trustees. In
addition, Ms Wurmser belongs to an organisation called the Middle East Forum.

Michael Rubin, a specialist on Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, who recently arrived
from yet another thinktank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
assists Mr Perle and Mr Wurmser at AEI. Mr Rubin also belongs to the Middle East

Another Middle East scholar at AEI is Laurie Mylroie, author of Saddam Hussein's
Unfinished War Against America, which expounds a rather daft theory that Iraq
was behind the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing.

When the book was published by the AEI, Mr Perle hailed it as "splendid and
wholly convincing".

An earlier book on Iraq Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf which Ms
Mylroie co-authored with Judith Miller, a New York Times journalist, became the
New York Times's No 1 bestseller.

Ms Mylroie and Ms Miller both have connections with the Middle East Forum. Mr
Perle, Mr Rubin, Ms Wurmser, Ms Mylroie and Ms Miller are all clients of Eleana
Benador, a Peruvian-born linguist who acts as a sort of theatrical agent for
experts on the Middle East and terrorism, organising their TV appearances and
speaking engagements.

Of the 28 clients on Ms Benador's books, at least nine are connected with the
AEI, the Washington Institute and the Middle East Forum.

Although these three privately-funded organisations promote views from only one
end of the political spectrum, the amount of exposure that they get with their
books, articles and TV appearances is extraordinary.

The Washington Institute, for example, takes the credit for placing up to 90
articles written by its members - mainly "op-ed" pieces - in newspapers during
the last year.

Fourteen of those appeared in the Los Angeles Times, nine in New Republic, eight
in the Wall Street Journal, eight in the Jerusalem Post, seven in the National
Review Online, six in the Daily Telegraph, six in the Washington Post, four in
the New York Times and four in the Baltimore Sun. Of the total, 50 were written
by Michael Rubin.

Anyone who has tried offering op-ed articles to a major newspaper will
appreciate the scale of this achievement.

The media attention bestowed on these thinktanks is not for want of other
experts in the field. American universities have about 1,400 full-time faculty
members specialising in the Middle East.

Of those, an estimated 400-500 are experts on some aspect of contemporary
politics in the region, but their views are rarely sought or heard, either by
the media or government.

"I see a parade of people from these institutes coming through as talking heads
[on cable TV]. I very seldom see a professor from a university on those shows,"
says Juan Cole, professor of history at Michigan University, who is a critic of
the private institutes.

"Academics [at universities] are involved in analysing what's going on but
they're not advocates, so they don't have the same impetus," he said.

"The expertise on the Middle East that exists in the universities is not being
utilised, even for basic information."

Of course, very few academics have agents like Eleana Benador to promote their
work and very few are based in Washington - which can make arranging TV
appearances , or rubbing shoulders with state department officials a bit

Those who work for US thinktanks are often given university-style titles such as
"senior fellow", or "adjunct scholar", but their research is very different from
that of universities - it is entirely directed towards shaping government

What nobody outside the thinktanks knows, however, is who pays for this
policy-shaping research.

Under US law, large donations given to non-profit, "non-partisan" organisations
such as thinktanks must be itemised in their annual "form 990" returns to the
tax authorities. But the identity of donors does not need to be made public.

The AEI, which deals with many other issues besides the Middle East, had assets
of $35.8m (23.2m) and an income of $24.5m in 2000, according to its most recent
tax return.

It received seven donations of $1m or above in cash or shares, the highest being

The Washington Institute, which deals only with Middle East policy, had assets
of $11.2m and an income of $4.1m in 2000. The institute says its donors are
identifiable because they are also its trustees, but the list of trustees
contains 239 names which makes it impossible to distinguish large benefactors
from small ones.

The smaller Middle East Forum had an income of less than $1.5m in 2000, with the
largest single donation amounting to $355,000.

In terms of their ability to influence policy, thinktanks have several
advantages over universities. To begin with they can hire staff without
committee procedures, which allows them to build up teams of researchers that
share a similar political orientation.

They can also publish books themselves without going through the academic
refereeing processes required by university publishers. And they usually site
themselves in Washington, close to government and the media.

Apart from influencing policy on the Middle East, the Washington Institute and
the Middle East Forum recently launched a campaign to discredit university
departments that specialise in the region.

After September 11, when various government agencies realised there was a
shortage of Americans who could speak Arabic, there were moves to beef up the
relevant university departments.

But Martin Kramer, of the Washington Institute, Middle East Forum and former
director of the Moshe Dayan Centre at Tel Aviv university, had other ideas.

He produced a vitriolic book Ivory Towers on Sand, which criticised Middle East
departments of universities in the US.

His book was published by the Washington Institute and warmly reviewed in the
Weekly Standard, whose editor, William Kristol, was a member of the Middle East
Forum along with Mr Kramer.

"Kramer has performed a crucial service by exposing intellectual rot in a
scholarly field of capital importance to national wellbeing," the review said.

The Washington Institute is considered the most influential of the Middle East
thinktanks, and the one that the state department takes most seriously. Its
director is the former US diplomat, Dennis Ross.

Besides publishing books and placing newspaper articles, the institute has a
number of other activities that for legal purposes do not constitute lobbying,
since this would change its tax status.

It holds lunches and seminars, typically about three times a week, where ideas
are exchanged and political networking takes place. It has also given testimony
to congressional committees nine times in the last five years.

Every four years, it convenes a "bipartisan blue-ribbon commission" known as the
Presidential study group, which presents a blueprint for Middle East policy to
the newly-elected president.

The institute makes no secret of its extensive links with Israel, which
currently include the presence of two scholars from the Israeli armed forces.

Israel is an ally and the connection is so well known that officials and
politicians take it into account when dealing with the institute. But it would
surely be a different matter if the ally concerned were a country such as Egypt,
Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

Apart from occasional lapses, such as the publication of Mr Kramer's book, the
Washington Institute typically represents the considered, sober voice of
American-Israeli conservatism.

The Middle East Forum is its strident voice - two different tones, but mostly
the same people.

Three prominent figures from the Washington Institute - Robert Satloff (director
of policy), Patrick Clawson (director of research) and Mr Rubin (prolific
writer, currently at AEI) - also belong to the forum.

Daniel Pipes, the bearded $100,000-a-year head of the forum is listed as an
"associate" at the institute, while Mr Kramer, editor of the forum's journal, is
a "visiting fellow".

Mr Pipes became the bete noire of US Muslim organisations after writing an
article for the National Review in 1990 that referred to "massive immigration of
brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic
standards of hygiene".

Since he usually complains vigorously when the words are quoted outside their
original context, readers are invited to view the full article at He is also noted for his combative performances on the Fox
News channel, where he has an interesting business relationship. Search for his
name on the Fox News website and, along with transcripts of his TV interviews,
an advert appears saying "Daniel Pipes is available thru Barber & Associates,
America's leading resource for business, international and technology speakers
since 1977".

The Middle East Forum issues two regular publications, the Middle East Quarterly
and the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, the latter published jointly with the
United States Committee for a Free Lebanon.

The Middle East Quarterly describes itself as "a bold, insightful, and
controversial publication".

Among the insights in its latest issue is an article on weapons of mass
destruction that says Syria "has more destructive capabilities" than Iraq, or

The Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, which is sent out by email free of charge
- but can never-the-less afford to pay its contributors - specialises in
covering the seamy side of Lebanese and Syrian politics. The ever-active Mr
Rubin is on its editorial board.

The Middle East Forum also targets universities through its campus speakers
Bureau - that in adopting the line of Mr Kramer's book, seeks to correct
"inaccurate Middle Eastern curricula in American education", by addressing
"biases" and "basic errors" and providing "better information" than students can
get from the many "irresponsible" professors that it believes lurk in US

At a time when much of the world is confused by what it sees as an increasingly
bizarre set of policies on the Middle East coming from Washington, to understand
the neat little network outlined above may make such policies a little more

Of course these people and organisations are not the only ones trying to
influence US policy on the Middle East. There are others who try to influence it
too - in different directions.

However, this particular network is operating in a political climate that is
currently especially receptive to its ideas.

It is also well funded by its anonymous benefactors and is well organised. Ideas
sown by one element are watered and nurtured by the others.

Whatever outsiders may think about this, worldly-wise Americans see no cause for
disquiet. It's just a coterie of like-minded chums going about their normal
business, and an everyday story of political life in Washington.


Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]