The consequences of the Iran deal won’t be felt by the Obama administration

The hallmark of the modern Democratic party has to be passing legislation and instituting policy that makes everyone feel really good for a moment but pushes massive consequences down the road. The Obama administration has done it with growing entitlement programs like Obamacare, growing the national debt, ignoring illegal immigration, and more. The Iran nuclear deal will end up being the latest in a long list. Buck Sexton has the story and reaction on today’s radio show.

Start listening at 21min into today's podcast:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

From a policy perspective, what the president is doing with Iran and the broader Middle East as well, you can see a pattern. It's one I think we should start to recognize for what it is. Because it's very difficult to deal with. And in a sense, it's almost like an Alinskyite subversion of democracy or subversion of a representative government. What they do is they make sure that policies that they couldn't get normally passed have a sort of time delay fuse on them, such that they won't be held accountable. Right?

So they plan things, whether it's health care, whether it's immigration, and now we see with Iran, do things that will give you a sort of political benefit today and the consequences are pushed down the line. Now, look, the best example of this and the one that is most obvious to many of us would be entitlements, which just in the last few weeks, the president has said, there's no problem with Social Security. There's no problem with the debt. Which is going to be $20 trillion by the time President Obama leaves office. No problem with any of this stuff. And, of course, it's easy. And it's very palatable and very profitable for a politician to say that's the case. Because you can say, this is the nice guy. This is the nice leader. The one that doesn't want to take away any of the stuff we have. Or change any of the promises government made to us. This is what we're running up against, time again. This is the Democrat playbook 101. You want to be the guy who promises things. Not the one that tells people that they actually can't have it. If you manipulate the time frame of all this stuff, that's not so hard to do.

You want to be the one who says, I'm going to give you stuff. Or I'm going to accomplish things today that you won't feel the consequences of for quite some time.

And also, I'm going to do things in such a way that you won't really know what's going on until it's too late for you to do anything about it. You're reading editorials about this. It's popping up all over the media. Now you're getting the real President Obama. Now you're seeing what Obama has always wanted to be as president. This is Obama released from the constraints of having to please the electorate and having to actually represent the will of the American people. You're getting the will of Obama now.

The aftermath of the midterm just became quite clear when he decided to go with an equity order on immigration. Why wait until not only after he's been reelected, but after the midterms. Because what we see. And this is where people say, I understand what Trump is getting at a little bit here. I understand that we should have this discussion. What the Democrats realize is that Americans across-the-board do not want illegal immigration. They do not want to live in a lawless society. They do not want to live in a country that does not have control of its borders. So they lie and they say it's not a problem. It's not happening. They tell us that they actually are doing more than ever to secure the borders and all the rest of it. That's why President Obama waited until after the midterm to take that action. Because if it was such a great idea and the American people liked it, well, why not do it beforehand. Let your party be judged by the American people on the actions it takes. That would seem to be rather straightforward. Yet, here we are. Here we are. Had to wait. Had to wait until the end.

With even the recent reform, or rather the commutations of prison sentences and the calls for reform from the president, the president is finally taking action on this. And this is something where he actually has some Libertarian support. There are other conservatives and other Republicans who are saying, yeah, we probably shouldn't have people who are first time offenders who are serving life sentences. That's not a good idea. We can do something about it. We can lessen those sentences. Wait until the end. Why? Democrats are, of course, haunted by a past of pandering, pandering to all sorts of constituencies in the country about, well, we don't want to have too many people that are locked up for crimes. And Democrats were essentially soft on crime for a long time.

And with the declines in this country and criminal activity that has been happening nationwide, there was a recognition that this is something that maybe they could change. So the president waits on that. But Iran is really the amazing test case for this theory that I have, right? It's the time delay fuse. And this is what they keep setting over and over again. And they can say whatever they want because we don't know. Not enough Americans figure out what's coming. It has to happen, right? Then you can expect there to be some kind of a revolt by the electorate. But if you don't know, the Democrats have the media on their side. They can do a lot of spin. With the Iran deal, I think they figured that would happen. They would be able to create a certain perception of this and by the time we figure it out because it's staring us in the face -- and in this case staring us in the face in the form of nuclear weapons, by the time we figure it out and it's clear -- it's too clear even for the propaganda to shroud it or to confuse people. The media won't be able to come up with a narrative that changes the discussion and then all of a sudden, yeah, I get that. Sure, I believe what they say.

This president will be long gone from office. Everybody who had made these decisions. But for them, for the very egotistical leadership we have in this country, the president, of course, is really in a class by himself in that regard, the fact that that is the case and that there won't be consequences necessarily for anybody because of the reckoning the American people will have with what's happened with the Iran deal. Which is, we have ensured a stronger, more dangerous, more durable nuclear-armed Iranian regime. By the time that could be a headline on every newspaper across the country because it's just so obvious, they will be gone.

And yet the president wants the victory dance now. The administration wants to spike the football in the end zone. They want the credit for this. They want the Nobel Peace Prizes for Kerry and whomever else. So they want it at the same time. They want both of these things. What we find out and what we see increasingly is that, no, no, it doesn't work that way. This isn't the '90s when the Clintons can kind of put out some kind of a meme and the media processes it and they just jam it down all of our throats. And we have no way of figuring out what's actually going on here. This was not what the president was expecting with Iran. This was not what he was expecting. He really thought that it would be something that he could at least get away with celebrating now. By the time we all figure out what's really happened, no accountability.

And that's really -- that's really the essential point here. That the Democrats are constantly doing things for which they're trying -- they're doing things and trying to evade accountability for their actions. Because at the heart of a progressive statist, they don't care what you think. They do not care what you think. And they also -- by the way, this is a big problem for Hillary because people know this about her. They don't care about your problems. You're just a bump in the road. You're just collateral damage to the grand policies of the better society that they're building by taking away your liberty, by deciding how much freedom you really should have. And if someone else is getting to decide all the time how much freedom you have, are you free? It's a fair question to ask yourself at this point.

But you're seeing it all now. It's all coming together. This crowning diplomatic achievement for the administration, that all of us look at it and say, no, no, the emperor actually has no clothing. And then the emperor is very upset. Wait a second. This is part of a pattern. This is not something that comes out of nowhere. This is something we should have been expecting. Because this is how the modern Democrat Party operates.

It's via the imposition of policies and the imposition of these things on all of us that we don't get a say in. And by the time everyone realizes what's happening, look at Obamacare. You want to talk about a time delayed fuse. Look at Obamacare. All the real stuff keeps getting pushed back, pushed back, pushed back. They're hoping to shape the ground. Create the narrative. And force feed all of us into this. And yet, with Iran, they miscalculated. He's getting his way. So in that respect, they timed this out perfectly. But they miscalculated what our perception would be. They thought that there would be a ticker tape parade waiting. And the American people looked at this and said, this is a capitulation. It is really the culmination of all of the greatest concerns that many of us have had about this administration. About this president from the start.

Go back even a few years. People were talking about an American retreat from the world stage. An obsession with multilateralism. Relying on international institutions, when American leadership and decisiveness is, in fact, much more important and a much more appropriate response.

Look at all of that. And what you see this week is that we were proven right. We've been right all along. The only problem is that being right doesn't stop the carnage in the Middle East. It doesn't stop the mullahs from their relentless pursuit, not just of nukes, but of hegemony across the Middle East. So we were right, all right. But it doesn't change the problems that we've been now saddled with by an administration that is much more concerned with ego than wisdom.

Take a break here. Back in just a minute.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.