Self-described peace activists typically act on the premise that America is a unique threat to world peace, a threat removable only by bowing before our enemies. The Center for International Policy (CIP) lives by this credo. Founded over 20 years ago, the Washington, D.C.-based think tank, especially through its Win Without War project, is dedicated to peaceful conflict resolution. That seems reasonable. War imposes high costs on everyone, even the victors. Yet CIP’s objectives, which include demilitarization and open borders, jeopardize U.S. security. Small wonder that George Soros’s Open Society Foundations donated over $7.5 million to CIP or Win Without War within the past decade.
The Center for International Policy, a decidedly Left-leaning, Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit group, was founded in 1975 under the fiscal sponsorship of the Fund for Peace, a risk assessment and human rights monitoring group. The timing was right. Communist forces now controlled all of Vietnam, plus neighboring Laos and Cambodia. Our government’s military approach to creating stability in Indochina had failed. Why not work for peace instead?
In the intervening 50 years, the Center for International Policy has retained its selective pacifism, if anything moving further leftward. It currently describes itself as “a woman-led, progressive, independent nonprofit center for research, education, and advocacy working to advance a more peaceful, just, and sustainable U.S. approach to foreign policy.” Its programs “offer alternative solutions to security challenges that are effective and sustainable for our nation, our global community, and our planet.”
This reads like a generic progressive-Left mission statement. Getting specific, where it counts, it’s a call for America to yield to demands by countries with less wealth and military capacity for the sake of “equality.” In an article published last December in Foreign Affairs, CIP President Nancy Okail and CIP Executive Vice President (and former advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders) Matt Duss explained: “The United States must choose between advancing a genuinely equitable global order or clinging to an undemocratic and unsustainable quest for global primacy. Our current trajectory not only fails to meet the needs of working Americans but also alienates nations and peoples worldwide and are calling for a more just and inclusive international system.”
The Center for International Policy, in effect, is ideally suited as a functionary of the Soros network. And it has been rewarded. During 2016-24, the Open Society Foundations (OSF) sent a combined $7,641,650 to the CIP and Win Without War (see here and here), with the two most recent years accounting for nearly a third of the total. Win Without War is one of several projects either housed within or fiscally sponsored by the Center. These projects include: Arms Sales Accountability Project, Dismantling Racism and Militarism in U.S. Foreign Policy, Security Assistance Monitor, A New Foreign Policy, Women for Weapons Trade Transparency, Mighty Earth, and Freedom Forward. A couple of them receive OSF funds, too. Security Assistance Monitor and/or the Center received $310,000 during that 2016-24 stretch, while Freedom Forward and/or the Center got $890,000. The Center for International Policy also offers fellowships and internships, and publishes an online periodical, International Policy Journal, whose contributors exhibit strong opposition to the U.S. and its allies, especially Israel.
Amid this panoply of organizations, Win Without War, which actually consists of two separate entities, is the main focus here. While it long has mobilized opposition to U.S. interests, Donald Trump’s return to the presidency has given it extra urgency. Win Without War is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt, nonprofit coalition formed in 2002 during the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq the following March. It partners with a wide range of affiliated nonprofits to create online campaigns and public rallies. A separate 501(c)(3) think tank spinoff, the Win Without War Education Fund, was founded in 2019 to conduct and publish research, hold conferences, and engage in public outreach.
Both entities, like its parent, the Center for International Policy, rest on the conviction that national interest must take a back seat to promotion of “inclusive” democracy and physical safety for the sake of humanity – including the portions of humanity that are implacably hostile to us. America’s destiny, they argue, must integrate itself into the world of global cooperation. This assumption allows virtually no leeway for pursuing interests through military means. “We believe that by democratizing foreign policy and providing progressive alternatives,” note the identical lists of founding principles of Win Without War and the Win Without War Education Fund, “we can achieve more peaceful, just and common sense policies that ensure that all people – regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, or economic status – can find and take advantage of opportunity equally and feel secure.” In their minds, those who oppose the emerging egalitarian, global-integrationist regime must be chauvinistic or depraved, especially when the name “Trump” comes up. In a recent speech, Win Without War President Stephen Miles, who is set to step down from his post at the start of next year to join the group’s board of directors, described House Republicans who support President Trump as “driven by hate, conspiracy, and bigotry.”
On a modest budget, Win Without War has built a 37-member coalition that includes MoveOn.org, the NAACP, the National Council of Churches, the National Organization for Women, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Rainbow/PUSH, and Working Assets, plus such lesser-known outfits as Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, CREDO Action, and Women’s Action for New Directions. Members implicitly accept a dictum that America has no authority to impose conditions on any foreign power except perhaps Israel.
In attempting to appear reasonable, Win Without War frequently employs dishonest tactics of argumentation. For example, it will condemn America for militarism yet will soft-pedal criticism of enemy militarism. Additionally, Win Without War will presume moral equivalence. It will, for example, denounce a terrorist attack against America, but will qualify the remark by noting our country created the conditions for the attack and thus must answer for its injustices.
Win Without War, along with Win Without War Education Fund, display on their respective websites an identical manifesto, Progressive Foreign Policy Principles. This is a 10-point wish list bathed in grievance, guilt, sentimentality and socialism. The second declaration, for example, reads: “Human security is not divisible and our own fears of insecurity do not justify policies that make others less safe.” It soon gets specific: “The United States’ safety depends on building security for all people around the world, not simply on the might of our military. Only by helping to make others secure will we ourselves become more secure.” Thus, in the name of building security, Win Without War wants America to become a full-scale global welfare agency, “rescuing” other nations from themselves – as if the United Nations doesn’t already have that job! The fourth declaration reads: “The health of the global environment is fundamental to global security.” As if anyone has to guess, the declaration goes on to say: “We recognize the United States’ role in driving climate insecurity and that many of the security challenges we face around the world are driven by climate change. Our own and the world’s future require effective, bold, and immediate responses to climate change if we are to achieve human and environmental security around the world.”
This manifesto is an invitation to misguided foreign policy. The Win Without War Education Fund, located in the same offices as Win Without War (1 Thomas Circle, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005), recently had this to say about the Gaza war: “In the long run, any agreement to end the Gaza conflict must respect Palestinians’ fundamental right to self-determination. We call on members of Congress to remain heavily engaged as negotiations continue, and to use that power and leverage with the Israeli government to help ensure aid is reaching Palestinians and a settlement that ensures peace and dignity for all in the region.”
Actually, it’s Hamas who could use some outside pressure. This summer, the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) posted information on its website indicating that 1,753 of its 2,013 aid trucks entering Gaza since this May 19 had been stolen either by desperate civilians or armed Hamas terrorists. Moreover, Hamas likely resold much of the missing food and supplies to fund its ongoing war, and used the resulting civilian suffering as proof of Israeli “genocide” – a sick, self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one. Indeed, there are eyewitness accounts, including those given by freed Israeli hostages, of stockpiles of UN-branded products stored inside Hamas tunnels.
For the time being, Win Without War is in transition at the top. On November 7, the group’s executive director of almost a half-decade, Sara Haghdoosti (in photo), an Iranian-born immigrant to the United States who grew up in Australia, announced her resignation to become program chief for the online petition website (and Win Without War partner) MoveOn.org. To say that her sympathies lie far more with Iran than with America would be a gross understatement. By her own admission, she came to this country as an adversary. In an interview with MoveOn.org, she stated, “I moved to the U.S. to help start Berim, a new organization to amplify Iranian voices, get people outside of Iran engaged, and change foreign policy.” Speaking of MoveOn.org, Ms. Haghdoosti’s Chicago-based, Jewish immigrant husband, Ilya Sheyman, served as executive director at that organization during 2013-19 and currently is co-owner and principal of a political consulting firm, AGIS Partners, LLC.
Sara Haghdoosti has been a Washington presence for over a decade. As head of Berim, she helped deliver a major victory for her side. During President Obama’s second term, she lobbied Congress and urged Obama to meet with then-Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to lay the groundwork for what would become the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The agreement, unveiled in July 2015, required the Iranian government to sharply curtail its nuclear development program in exchange for the UN, the U.S. and the European Union lifting sanctions. To sweeten the deal, the U.S. agreed to pay Iran $150 billion.
President Trump in 2018 unilaterally withdrew from JCPOA, arguing it was costly and one-sided. In response, Iran incrementally reversed course from its mandate for compliance. It expanded its nuclear stockpile, enriched its uranium to near weapons-grade, and sharply limited onsite inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yet Haghdoosti insisted the whole time that America dismantle its nuclear defense system and account for its human rights violations, never mind Iran’s horrible record on human rights that continues to this day. The JCPOA treaty expired this October, but there remain unresolved disputes over “snapback” provisions allowing Western signatories to reinstate restrictions on Iran in the event it fails to comply. Iran may yet develop a nuclear bomb.
With Haghdoosti’s departure, Deputy Director Shayna Lewis took over as Win Without War’s interim executive director, determined to build on her predecessor’s legacy. “I’m confident in the team’s ability to stay the course and keep working to build a world where people are safe, no matter what the Trump administration throws our way,” Lewis remarked. That’s kind of the problem. The following summaries of selected high-priority activities underscore why.
Military sedition. Unbeknownst to many, Win Without War is playing a key role in the Left’s current campaign to coax military personnel into disobeying “illegal” presidential orders. A quick review: On November 24, six Democratic members of Congress – Sen. Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Sen. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), Rep. Jason Crow (Colo.), Rep. Maggie Goodlander (N.H.), Rep. Chris Deluzio (Pa.) and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.) – took part in a 90-second video that advised military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders.” They were not specific about which orders to disobey. To its defenders, the widely broadcast clip was simply an affirmation to obey our laws, not a call to overthrow our government. Yet that begs the question of why a half-dozen U.S. lawmakers, each with a military or intelligence background, would participate in an out-of-the-blue video like this. In the context of the recent White House-approved, lethal air strikes on fishing boats in the Caribbean which according to reliable sources were used for drug trafficking, the motive comes into focus. The participants in that video weren’t just exercising their right to dissent; they were fomenting mass resistance, within and outside the military, to President Trump, commander-in-chief of our armed forces. The case for sedition here, far from bizarre, would seem plausible.
Win Without War has been in the thick of this conflict. In an open letter and petition form, the nonprofit addressed the “Sedition Six” with these encouraging words: “Thank you for letting our servicemembers know their rights in the midst of extraordinary threats to the Constitution. We, the people, have your back and urge you to keep pushing back against Trump’s authoritarianism.” Support also has been conveyed via highway billboards. In North Carolina, Win Without War and an allied veterans’ group, About Face: Veterans Against the War, have erected billboards near Fort Bragg (Army) and Camp Lejeune (Marines) that read: “Not What You Signed up for?” Each display a web address, NotWhatYouSignedUpFor.org, and beneath that the message, “Paid for by Win Without War.” The goal, in Win Without War’s words, is to create a system ”built to connect active duty, national guard, and reserve members of the military with key resources on responding to unlawful orders.” This appears to be a nice way of saying, “We want to establish networks with other radical groups that might relay information to leaders of enemy nations.” One of those “key resources,” in fact, is the National Lawyers Guild, a longtime pro-Communist legal aid organization.
The billboard campaign has been active elsewhere. “Don’t let them make you break the law,” read digital billboards near U.S. Southern Command headquarters in Doral, Fla., home base for our Caribbean operations. In Memphis, following the Trump administration’s deployment of the Tennessee National Guard, Win Without War activists posted a NotWhatYouSignedUpFor.org billboard on Beale Street, the heart of the city’s tourism and entertainment. And in Washington, D.C., Win Without War sponsored a mobile billboard displaying the message, “National Guard: Is this what you signed up for?”
Immigration policy. Immigration is as at least much a domestic issue as a foreign one, if not more so, because it is the receiving nation who bears most of the consequences. Win Without War is determined to block the arrest and deportations of migrants illegally living here and/or acquiring a felony record here. It’s pretty much in line with its perspective. The eighth item in “Principles for a Progressive Foreign Policy for the United States,” reads: “The location of someone’s birth should never confine them to poverty, war, or environmental insecurity.” This is flatly absurd. First, all nations restrict immigration, and often more stringently than we do. Without border or interior enforcement, a country eventually will become a microcosm of the world – that is to say, a country with no particular reason to exist. And second, the country of one’s birth does matter. It provides necessary cues to the receiving nation as to the willingness and ability of newcomers to culturally assimilate.
To Win Without War, however, immigration law enforcement constitutes oppression. “The United States must safeguard universal human rights to dignity, equality, migration, and refuge,” as the eighth “principle” elaborates. “All people have the right to seek opportunity, safety, stability through migration. We must always prioritize approaches based on human dignity and diplomacy over those that vilify and dehumanize others, or use coercion or force.” Add to that, “even if the host country objects.” Win Without War has denounced Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids to arrest and deport unauthorized migrants, calling these legal (and overdue) raids a “reign of terror.” George Soros couldn’t be prouder.
With Donald Trump back in the saddle again, the radical nonprofit is in full fury mode. Early this month, Win Without War Policy Director Sam Ratner let loose a morally self-righteous blast in the wake of the shooting of two National Guardsmen in Washington, D.C., an act almost certainly committed by an Afghan immigrant, Rahmanullah Lakanwal. Ratner wrote:
The Trump administration is exploiting a tragedy to further its racist agenda – this time, the horrific shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C. last week. Cutting off all asylum applicants and threatening the immigration status of green card holders from many countries in the Global South is a cruel collective punishment inflicted on people attempting to seek safety for them and their families and who had nothing to do with last week’s awful crime. This policy will not make anyone, anywhere more secure.
Perhaps it has not occurred to Mr. Ratner that it is an American president’s principal job to secure the safety of Americans, not the whole world. That the CIA-trained Lakanwal, who arrived in the U.S. under Operation Allies Welcome, robbed two National Guardsmen of their safety (and one of them of her life) seems of passing concern to Ratner. The larger reality, in case Win Without War hasn’t noticed by now, is that many people in the world mean us great harm. If such people disproportionately dwell in identifiably hostile countries, being “nice” to them amounts to capitulation. An asylum application cutoff in such instances, far from being “cruel” or “racist,” is commonsense risk management.
Gender radicalism. Gender identity, like racial identity, lies at the heart of today’s Left radicalism. The Soros philanthropy network has made this issue a top priority in recent years, doling out funds for organizations that support lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) individuals in countries, including ours, that ostensibly deny these people their rights. These groups typically view LGBT activists as part of a broad, “intersectional” coalition of the oppressed. Win Without War is at the forefront here. And its mission is global. The ninth item listed in the group’s “Principles” reads:
The U.S. must be a leader in dismantling systemic oppression by acting in solidarity with those working to cast off injustice within our borders and beyond them. By centering the voices and needs of the populations our policies disproportionately affect – women, LGTBQ+ people, people of color, people in the Global South, Indigenous people, people with disabilities, and low-income communities around the world – we can ensure we can develop policies that uplift everyone and defend the rights of all individuals and communities.
Can Leftist universalism get more cliched than this? And, more to the point, can it get more dishonest? What the Win Without War won’t mention here is its motive. And the motive, presented as fighting “injustice,” is punishing the people allegedly responsible for injustice. Put bluntly, affluent whites, heterosexuals and males, save possibly for those bearing the name “Soros,” would pay dearly.
Win Without War for a while now has been highly defensive of that emotionally confused bloc of Americans known as the transgendered. Several years ago, at the start of the Biden era, it issued a press release insisting that U.S. foreign policy honor “trans livelihoods.” After excoriating President Trump’s [first-term] “disgusting transgender military ban,” Win Without War, pouring on the maudlin aggression, stated: “As transgender people, and LGBTQ+ people more broadly, face violence both directly and indirectly by U.S.-supported powers, transgender folks are left with little safe, secure and stable options to thrive let alone survive across the globe. Tell Biden to keep his promise and to prioritize the rights and safety of transgender and gender non-conforming people globally!” (Note: the bold typeface is that of Win Without War.)
These issue areas are but a sliver of the varied campaigns that Win Without War, Win Without War Education Fund, and their parent, the Center for International Policy, are waging to transform U.S. foreign policy into a vehicle for global wealth and power redistribution. Equally to the point, these and other Soros-funded groups view nation-state sovereignty, which involves rights and responsibilities, as outdated. In the glorious new world to come, they tell us, governments will recognize their moral and legal obligation to protect the world. To these activists, it is unthinkable that America should put Americans first. It makes sense that the Open Society Foundations, with $25 billion in assets, is a major benefactor.
Carl F. Horowitz is a NLPC senior fellow.
