On CIA-Backed Think Tanks
Think tanks—the modern-day high priests of policy—are often revered as the bastions of wisdom, where sharp minds gather to pontificate on matters of global importance. They publish research, advise governments, and shape public debates. But behind the scholarly façade of institutions like the RAND Corporation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Atlantic Council, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Brookings Institution, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) lurks a far more insidious reality: many of these institutions have functioned as the intellectual arm of the CIA, justifying covert operations and regime change policies under the noble pretense of democracy promotion.
This is not to say that every bespectacled scholar working at these think tanks receives direct orders from Langley. But through their funding sources, their personnel pipelines, and their ideological leanings, they have proven exceptionally useful in laundering U.S. foreign policy objectives, making coups and interventions appear not as cynical power plays, but as the inevitable march of history toward liberal democracy. If one were to draw a crude analogy, the CIA is the surgeon wielding the scalpel of regime change, and think tanks are the white-coated physicians assuring the world that the operation is for the patient’s own good—even as the anesthesia fails and the screams grow louder.
At the core of this nexus between think tanks and American foreign policy lies the simple matter of money. Institutions like the RAND Corporation and the Atlantic Council are generously funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, NATO governments, and the very arms manufacturers that profit from military interventions. When the Brookings Institution and Carnegie Endowment accept funding from the U.S. State Department, it takes an astonishing level of naïveté to assume that their foreign policy research will remain independent. But perhaps the most glaring conflict of interest arises from the infamous revolving door—where government officials, military leaders, and intelligence operatives retire into cushy positions at these think tanks, offering “independent” analysis that just so happens to align perfectly with Washington’s interests.
Consider the case of Leon Panetta, former CIA director, who later graced think tanks like the Atlantic Council and CSIS with his presence. Or Michael Hayden, another ex-CIA chief, who seamlessly transitioned into the world of think tank punditry. Then there was Zbigniew Brzezinski, a grand strategist who played a crucial role in arming Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets while being closely associated with CSIS. These figures did not suddenly develop a passion for neutral scholarship upon entering the world of think tanks. Instead, they continued the same mission—only now, they could cloak their advocacy in the respectable language of policy analysis.
Of course, these think tanks are not merely passive cheerleaders for interventionism; they actively participate in crafting the narratives that justify regime change operations. Take the 1953 coup in Iran, in which Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was overthrown for the crime of nationalizing British oil interests. At the time, Cold War rhetoric painted Mossadegh as a potential communist sympathizer, and think tanks like RAND and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) provided the intellectual scaffolding for such claims. The result? The installation of a pro-Western dictator, the Shah, whose brutal reign ultimately led to the 1979 revolution.
A similar tale unfolded in Chile in 1973, where the CIA orchestrated the ousting of Salvador Allende. This time, think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) played a crucial role in promoting free-market policies that would later be imposed under Pinochet’s iron-fisted rule. While Pinochet’s death squads roamed the streets, think tank scholars marveled at Chile’s miraculous transformation into a neoliberal paradise—a classic case of the ends justifying the means.
Fast-forward to the 21st century, and the same playbook was dusted off for Iraq. The 2003 invasion was sold to the world on the now-infamous claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Think tanks eagerly jumped on board, with AEI scholars advocating for regime change as early as the late 1990s. The Brookings Institution, too, lent credibility to the Bush administration’s case for war, despite glaring holes in the intelligence. The result? A catastrophic war that destabilized an entire region, killed hundreds of thousands, and gave rise to ISIS. But at least the think tank reports were well-cited.
Even in more recent interventions, think tanks have remained loyal to their mission of legitimizing U.S. foreign policy adventures. During the Arab Spring, institutions like the Atlantic Council and the Carnegie Endowment framed U.S. and NATO intervention in Libya as a necessary humanitarian effort. The brutal assassination of Muammar Gaddafi and the subsequent collapse of Libya into a failed state were, apparently, minor details. The real victory, according to the think tank class, was the triumph of democracy—never mind that Libya became a haven for human trafficking and jihadist militias.
The genius of these institutions lies in their ability to manufacture consent. Their reports, conferences, and policy recommendations create an echo chamber in which regime change is always the logical, moral, and necessary course of action. This is not done through blatant propaganda but through the more sophisticated mechanisms of intellectual legitimacy. When a NATO-funded think tank publishes a research paper concluding that a particular government is a threat to democracy, the findings are cited by journalists, repeated by politicians, and ultimately shape public opinion. By the time the bombs start falling, the intervention has already been framed as an unfortunate necessity rather than an act of imperial aggression.
If history is any guide, these think tanks will continue to provide intellectual cover for future regime change operations. Perhaps tomorrow’s target will be Venezuela, where think tank reports have long painted Nicolás Maduro as an existential threat to regional stability. Or maybe it will be Iran again, where “experts” routinely warn about the dangers of its nuclear program, conveniently ignoring the long history of U.S. meddling in Iranian affairs. Wherever the next intervention occurs, one can be sure that a glossy think tank report will be there to justify it.
Of course, it would be unfair to paint all think tank scholars as CIA stooges. Many researchers within these institutions genuinely believe in their work and strive for rigorous analysis. However, the structural realities of funding and institutional alignment mean that dissenting voices rarely gain prominence. A scholar advocating for non-intervention in Syria or a peaceful resolution with Russia is unlikely to receive the same platform as one arguing for a robust military response. It is not outright censorship but the more insidious process of gatekeeping that ensures only certain perspectives dominate the policy debate.
However, think tanks remain essential instruments of U.S. hegemony. Their reports are cited in congressional hearings, their experts are interviewed on prime-time news, and their policy recommendations shape the decisions of governments worldwide. But beneath the veneer of academic neutrality lies a deeply political agenda—one that has, time and again, served the interests of intelligence agencies, defense contractors, and Washington’s strategic ambitions. As consumers of news and policy analysis, we must remain skeptical of these institutions and question whose interests they truly serve.
And so, the next time a think tank report earnestly explains why a certain country must be bombed for the sake of freedom, one should ask: is this genuine analysis, or just another sophisticated sales pitch for empire?
———–
Rajeev Ahmed
The Editor of Geopolits.com and the Author of the book titled Bengal Nexus
————