Skip to main content

← Think Tanks and Hawks

Defense-Industry Money Behind the Think Tanks That Cheered the War

When a retired general or a think-tank "senior fellow" appears on television to explain why the war on Iran is going well, viewers are rarely told who pays that person's institute. This page gathers what the research for this investigation found: the companies that build the missiles fired at Iran give tens of millions of dollars to the institutes whose experts argue for firing them.

$42 million from weapons makers​

In March 2026, as American strikes hit Iran, Nick Cleveland-Stout of the Quincy Institute (a think tank that favors military restraint) published data on defense-industry funding of foreign-policy institutes. As summarized by X's news system:

"Nick Cleveland-Stout of the Quincy Institute shared data showing over $42 million from defense firms like Lockheed Martin to groups such as the Atlantic Council ($12.8 million) and Center for a New American Security ($8.85 million) since 2019."

"These think tanks have voiced support for Operation Epic Fury, President Trump's U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran that began February 28, despite polls like Quinnipiac's showing 53% opposition among voters."

A widely shared post on the same story: "Americans largely oppose the war on Iran. But the war is very popular among Washington think tanks, who are flush with more than $44 million from weapons companies since 2019 and act as the war's loudest cheerleaders across major media networks" (X news summary, March 18, 2026). A link list of coverage cites a Common Dreams article of March 17, 2026 headlined "weapons makers fund the Iran war cheerleaders," by Cleveland-Stout (bapd.org).

CSIS and Lockheed​

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) produced the most-cited estimates of how many missiles the war consumed and how long it would take to rebuild (see munitions drawdown). Its warnings of a weapons shortage became the argument for more spending. One reporter, linking the outlet Sludge, noted that the Pentagon was seeking a $200 billion war supplemental and that "Think tankers talking on it are funded in part by weapons contractors who will profit, like CSIS and Lockheed Martin" (David Moore on X, March 18, 2026; Sludge, March 5, 2026).

Hudson: "the Iranians at this point only have the ability to essentially terrorize"​

A 2026 column on the war's think-tank cheerleaders quoted Rebeccah Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute, "a regular now on Fox News": "We are destroying Iran's ability to even produce more weapons after we've destroyed the missiles, the launchers, the drones, and so the Iranians at this point only have the ability to essentially terrorize, shooting a drone here, a drone there, at civilian targets against Gulf states." The same column: "The neoconservative Hudson Institute has received $2.6 million from defense contractors in funding since 2019, according to the Think Tank Tracker." (captured search scrape). Months later, U.S. intelligence found about two-thirds of Iran's missile launchers had survived and that the strikes had not softened Tehran's position (see the DIA leak and the obliterated claim).

The four cheerleaders​

Journalist Eli Clifton, co-author of a book on Israel's lobby and co-founder of the Quincy Institute: "Four out of four AI models agree that The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy were among the top think tanks cheerleading the war in Iran reports @LobeLog." (Clifton on X, April 14, 2026). AEI's Elaine McCasker (name as rendered in the post) estimated the first five weeks of the war cost $22.3 billion to $31 billion (@PravoqueJournal on X, April 8, 2026).

A 2023 warning sign​

CNAS, which took $8.85 million from defense firms, was reported in 2023 to be "recommending that the US government convey to various Iranian officials that if they don't comply with its wishes they will be murdered," according to writer Robert Wright (Arnaud Bertrand on X, April 1, 2023; Wright's newsletter). That is Wright's characterization of a CNAS paper.

Why it matters​

Three money streams meet at these institutes: defense contractors who profit from refilling stockpiles, pro-Israel donors who fund FDD and JINSA (see FDD), and the Pentagon itself, whose officials rotate through them. The experts who told Americans the war was necessary and succeeding were not neutral. Funding does not prove motive, but a citizen deserves to know it before believing the man on the screen.

Status: Nick Cleveland-Stout, Eli Clifton, Rebeccah Heinrichs, David Moore, and Robert Wright are alive.

Sources​

Last Updated: 2026-09-26

Last updated on