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.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?