Right Web

PRA's Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

An outspoken proponent of the notion that "Islamists" pose an existential threat to western civilization, Daniel Pipes is founder and head of the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based think tank that purports "to define and promote American interests in the Middle East." [1] Pipes, who is also a recognized Arabic expert and son of the well known anti-Soviet crusader Richard Pipes, frequently lambastes Arab politics, urges a broad "war on terror" aimed at challenging Mideast regimes from Syria to Iran, and pushes a Likud Party line on Israeli regional relations.

Pipes has backed numerous high-profile neoconservative and Likud-aligned initiatives. He supported efforts by the now-defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC) to pressure the George W. Bush administration to join Israel in waging a broad war on terrorism in the Middle East in the wake of the 9/11 attacks [2]; he has been a member of the presidium of the Likud-aligned Jerusalem Summit; he was a member of the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon; and he is a former scholar of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank that was spun off from the powerful lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Pipes confirmed for many his Islamophobic tendencies in a January 2010 National Review article in which he lauded the controversial rightwing Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is best known for calling Mohammed a "devil" and demanding that Muslims "tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands." Calling Wilders "a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader who has rapidly become the most dynamic political force in the Netherlands," Pipes used his article to decry a lawsuit charging Wilders with hate speech and incitement to hatred, saying that he stands "shoulder-to-shoulder [with Wilders] against the lawsuit" and that he "reject[s] the criminalization of political differences." [3]

Observers noted the irony of the fact that Pipes, a hardline Israel-centric ideologue, would unabashedly support a politician who openly considers alliances with anti-semitic elements in Europe and has been harshly criticized by the Anti-Defamation League for pushing a "message of hate against Islam [that is] inflammatory, divisive and antithetical to American democratic ideals." [4]

"Pipes' endorsement of Wilders brings a new low to his credibility as a serious commentator on Middle East affairs," wrote Eli Clifton of the Inter Press Service, who noted that Pipes is not alone among neoconservatives in supporting Wilders. "During his frequent trips to the U.S., Wilders has enjoyed the hospitality of Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, David Horowitz's Freedom Center, Pipes' Middle East Forum, and the Republican Jewish Coalition." [5]

On U.S. Intervention in the Middle East

Pipes' success at promoting both himself and his views was underscored in 2003 when President Bush nominated Pipes to serve on the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP). A Boston Globe columnist, commenting on the nomination, opined that if Pipe's "admonitions [on Islamic terrorism] had been heeded, there might never have been a 9/11." [6]

Other observers, however, have argued that following Pipes' advice would have led the country to war with most of the Arab world. In 2000, for example, he co-produced with Ziad Abdelnour and the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon a report calling for the United States to force Syria from Lebanon and to disarm it of its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The document, titled "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: The U.S. Role?" argued that "Syrian rule in Lebanon stands in direct opposition to American ideals" and criticized the United States for engaging rather than confronting the regime. Regarding the use of force, the document reasoned: "The Vietnam legacy and the sour memories of dead American Marines in Beirut notwithstanding ... the United States has entered a new era of undisputed military supremacy with an appreciable drop in human losses on the battlefield. ... This opens the door to a similar decision to act for Lebanon's endangered freedoms and pluralism. But this opportunity may not wait, for as weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities spread, the risks of such action will rapidly grow." [7]

Among the signatories to this MEF report were several future Bush administration figures, including Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Michael Rubin, David Wurmser, and Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky. Other signers included Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Michael Ledeen, and Frank Gaffney.

When congressional figures and media pundits expressed outrage over Bush's nomination of Pipes to the USIP, Pipes' friends in the neoconservative community quickly came to his defense. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote that the "attack on Pipes" was nothing but "another symptom of the absurd political correctness surrounding Islamic radicalism." [8] Following strong opposition from democratic senators, President Bush bypassed the Senate and gave Pipes a recess appointment. [9]

Extremist Views

In his many publications on Islamic issues and the war on terror, Pipes often espouses extremist views, some of which border on racism. He once said that Muslim immigrants were "brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene." [10] Regarding the reason for invading Iraq, Pipes opined: "WMD was never the basic reason for war. Nor was it the horrid repression in Iraq. Or the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors. ... The campaign in Iraq is about keeping promises to the United States or paying the consequences. ... Keep your promises or you are gone. It's a powerful precedent that U.S. leaders should make the most of." [11]

When Pipes' term at USIP ended in 2005, Bush declined to renominate him, which came as little surprise to many observers who pointed to the incessant criticism Pipes directed at the Bush administration while serving on USIP's board. Wrote Jim Lobe: "Pipes blasted USIP for hosting a conference with the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, charging that it employed Muslim 'radicals' on its staff. That accusation was publicly refuted by the USIP itself, which echoed the complaints of his longtime critics, accusing him of relying on 'quotes taken out of context, guilt by association, errors of fact, and innuendo.' Pipes also criticized Bush for 'legitimizing' various 'Islamist' groups, such as CAIR and the Arab-American Institute, by permitting their representatives to take part in White House and other government ceremonies, and for failing to identify 'radical Islam' as 'the enemy' in the war on terror." [12]

In early 2005, Pipes suggested establishing an Anti-Islamist Institute, which he argued was necessary because "in the long term ... the legal activities of Islamists pose as much or even a greater set of challenges than the illegal ones." He also promoted the creation of the Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP), which according to its website is "a think tank that challenges the dominance of American Muslim life by militant Islamist groups." [13]

The CIP was purportedly created to fight back the influence of the Wahabi movement-a very conservative strain of Islam-in the United States. It proposes to get rid of the monopoly that the "Wahabi lobby" supposedly has on Washington. This lobby includes, according to CIP, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust, the Muslim Students' Association of the United States and Canada, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Some scholars view these as independent, not Wahhabist, organizations. Other organizations targeted by CIP include more secular groups, such as the Arab-American Institute and the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. However, some associates of CIP expressed concern when queried about the various groups to be targeted by the new organization. Ali al-Ahmed, who was named as CIP's first director of research, told the Inter Press Service that although he supported the group's goals he was surprised at the list of organizations to be scrutinized by CIP because several of the "Wahhabi lobby" groups were in fact independent. [14]

Middle East Forum

In the early 1990s, Pipes founded the Middle East Forum (MEF), a think tank that describes itself as "aimed at defining and promoting American interests in the Middle East. ... The Forum holds that the United States has vital interests in the region; in particular, it believes in strong ties with Israel, Turkey, and other democracies as they emerge; works for human rights throughout the region; seeks a stable supply and a low price of oil; and promotes the peaceful settlement of regional and international disputes."

Among MEF's programs is Campus Watch, which tracks university professors who are perceived to be anti-Israel, antisemitic, pro-Palestinian, or pro-Islamist. Seen by many as an affront to academic freedom and an attempt to silence criticism of U.S. policies toward Israel and the Arab world, the program encourages students at colleges and universities to report any teachers who exhibit such behaviors in the classroom. One critic of Campus Watch, Joel Benin, a former professor of Middle East studies at Stanford University, said of the program: "Campus Watch ... compiles dossiers on professors and universities that do not meet its standard of uncritical support for the policies of George Bush and Ariel Sharon. ... The efforts to stifle public debate about U.S. Middle East policy and criticism of Israel are being promoted by a network of neoconservative true believers with strong links to the Israeli hard right. They are enthusiastic supporters of the Bush administration's hands off approach to Ariel Sharon's suppression of the Palestinian uprising. And they are aggressive proponents of a preemptive U.S. strike against Iraq." [15]

Similarly, the international relations scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in their controversial 2006 critique of the influence of the so-called Israel Lobby on U.S. foreign policy that Campus Watch was founded by "passionately pro-Israel neoconservative Jews" with the intention of "encourag[ing] students to report comments or behavior that might be considered hostile to Israel" in a "transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars." [16]

Pipes' personal website, DanielPipes.org, often attacks Islamic figures and organizations. It posts his publications, which frequently appear in the pages of rightist outlets like the New York Sun and FrontPageMagazine.com, which is a project of David Horowitz's Freedom Center. DanielPipes.org also hosts Pipes' weblog, where he discusses issues such as the potential for war between Israel and Syria and the potentially unhappy consequences for Israel of Arab demographics.

After a plot to attack Fort Dix, New Jersey was uncovered, the right-wing National Review Online asked Pipes and others what lessons they drew from the events. Pipes responded: "Immigrants seeking refuge in the West must be grilled for their attitudes toward our civilization, our religion, and politics. Whether it be Somali refugees in the United Kingdom, Algerian ones in France, or Balkan ones in the United States (remember the Salt Lake City shooter in February, as well as four of the current six accused terrorists [involved in the Fort Dix plot]), individuals given the privilege and benefits of a new life then with some regularity turn around and attack their adapted fellow citizens. This unacceptable pattern has to be scrutinized to prevent future such atrocities." [17]

In May 2006, Pipes received the "Guardian of Zion" award, given annually to a prominent supporter of the state of Israel, from the Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. [18] Krauthammer received the award in 2002.