WATCH: Buck Sexton breaks down the triggers in the Middle East

On last night’s Glenn Beck Program, TheBlaze national security editor Buck Sexton joined Glenn to discuss the escalating tensions in Egypt and the “trigger” events that the world should fear.

While Buck talked a lot about the upheaval in Egypt, he also spoke to Glenn about the triggers that could ignite World War 3.

Below is a transcript of the segment, although you really should watch the segment at the top of the page for a full understanding with visual aids:

Glenn: Okay, I asked you to come back on this program, and we’re not going to have time today to get to all of it, but I want you to share with one thing, because I got your briefing today. And I asked you to look at triggers that could trigger World War III, what that might look like, and also where could we reduce our presence.

I’d like to get to those two questions later, and it may be another episode. What I really want to talk about is something you brought to my attention in this briefing of Mackinder, is it Mackinder?

Buck: Mackinder.

Glenn: Mackinder’s Geographical Pivot of History, what is this? This is fascinating.

Buck: Well, I’ll show you on the map here, Glenn. This is…Mackinder was a turn-of-the-century geopolitical philosopher of sorts. He was really the father of modern geopolitical strategy, and what you have here is the map that is based upon his Geographical Pivot of History paper that he published in 1904. Now, what this essentially says is that for a country to rule the world, for it to be the preeminent power in the world, it has to control this area, the pivot area.

Now, a lot of his fellow Englishmen didn’t pay much attention to this theory. Who did was Haushofer, Karl Haushofer, who was a leading German general as well as political theorist who was the reason why they decided to invade Russia based upon this pivot theory. Now, why does this matter today, Glenn? If we were to talk about the areas of instability in the world as we are right now, we look at the Middle East, you see it comes right down here into the pivot area.

You have world powers squaring off – China, Russia, the U.S., and perhaps some people would push India in here. This area which now should extend down into the Middle East as well – he was doing this over 100 years ago, but he had a lot of foresight, Mackinder – this area is now the part of the world that’s being fought over by global powers. Anybody who controls this controls resources that have a dramatic impact on the geostrategic balance of the world.

And this, by the way, also gives us a sense of why is it now that the U.S. has bases? You asked me about bases – Okinawa, tens of thousands of U.S. troops; South Korea, tens of thousands of U.S. troops; Germany, tens of thousands of US troops. You look at where we have positioned our military strength abroad, and yes, it’s somewhat a remnant of the Cold War, but Glenn, the Cold War takes into account this theory as well. This is essentially where all the world powers meet, and it’s determined by geography, not even necessarily ideology.

Glenn: Show me where the Iron Curtain was. Can you roughly run your finger down where the Iron Curtain was?

Buck: It would’ve come down here, so a little outside of there. Now, part of this was he actually said, Mackinder actually said that whoever controls East Germany can then control the heartland, which is also called the pivot area, a name for the same thing. So that was why the Germans decided to push into this area.

The reason, Glenn, the reason for all this is that for a great land power, you need great resources. At the time, Mackinder was thinking about coal. He was thinking about timber. He was thinking about iron ore. That’s why he focused on this area; however, now with the fossil fuel economy, when you bring the Middle East into the equation, it dramatically changes the entire thing, and you understand why this is where the instability is. This is where the fighting is. And you have world powers and U.S. bases all around the rim in what’s known as the inner crescent.

Glenn: Okay. So that’s the part of the world that’s completely unstable here, Buck. So what is it that we should be doing? I mean, here’s my solution: That’s all on resources, so we should be forgetting about resources, and we should be exploiting our resources because it would allow us to maintain a power position in the world and be self-reliant. We wouldn’t have to worry about the rest.

Buck: This is the big question, Glenn, what happens if we abandon these strategic positions around here in what Mackinder called the rim land? This is where he said look, they’re fighting over this, but it’s not the powers within here necessarily. Obviously Russia at one point, the Soviet Union, controlled this. It’s those in the rim land around it that are fighting over what’s here in the middle, what is in that pivot area.

If we lose Okinawa, Glenn, if we lose South Korea, if we lose our bases in Germany – we have troops, by the way, in over 150 countries. In some countries, it’s three or four guys. In some it’s 40 or 50,000 depending. But if we pull them out from here, the world powers right now will continue to fight over this region, at least with regard to influence if not open war.

You’ve talked about global war, Glenn. You’ve talked about World War III. If it’s going to happen, it will be triggered in this area, because that’s the only place where these world powers collide. That is the collision point within Mackinder’s pivot area. It hasn’t really changed all that much.

Glenn: How well known is this to the thinkers in the Middle East? I mean, if you look at Putin, he clearly knows it because I mean, look what he’s doing. He’s right in that pivot area down at the bottom. He’s playing for all of that right now. That’s Syria and everything else that he has…they’re turning boats with bullets around that we, that the United States purchased from Russia. They’re turning those boats around and sending them back to Syria because they’re very serious about this. But how about the Middle East? I mean, how much sophistication is going on in the Middle East? Do they know about this?

Buck: Well, quite honestly, this tends to be the view taken by the global powers. Now, the Middle East is sort of the area that’s always being fought over here, including the stans. We always think of the stans, by the way, Glenn. It’s Persian for “land of.” So Afghanistan, land of Afghans, Tajikistan, land of Tajiks. They are the ones who have been caught in the middle of this.

If you take a longer view back into history, by the way, the steppe peoples, the ones that went all the way across into Europe, really threatened all of Christendom at one point in time, the Mongols, the Huns, and made their way as far east as Japan, this area of the world has been the fulcrum for geopolitical change going back for more than centuries, millennia actually, and it’s because it is the center of what’s known as the World Island, which is this whole mass here.

Yes, we can play a major role in it, and we do. We’re the preeminent power in the world. But if we don’t control this, Glenn, if we pull out of here, the whole point is other countries may do it. And the Middle East knows that they are sitting on top of the golden goose.

Glenn: So are we, I contend; however, we just have to be willing to exploit those resources, and we can be self-sufficient. Buck, from New York, our national security advisor and also one of the real stars on the Real News which follows this program, thanks for joining us. Back in a minute.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.