Glenn: Syria a "sick opportunity" progressive revolutionaries to remold the world

I want to talk to a little bit about what we are about to do. The president is ready to go it alone now for the second time without congressional approval. Remember when the left hated this?

His first unauthorized kinetic military action was in Libya. The bombing of Syria is now also on the horizon, and the Russians are telling us it could start as early as tomorrow. Reports say the bombings will last two days at the most. I think his attempt here is laughable, especially considering “one U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

Oh, is that our American threshold now? Let’s not go out there and win; let’s just go out there and do enough so people can’t make fun of us. Oh my gosh, lives are at stake. People will die, and we’re doing it just at the level to where we’re not mocked. Jay Carney all but assured – try this one – that Assad is of course going to remain in power.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change. They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.

Oh my gosh, so we are…we’re just gonna…we’re gonna…what? Here’s the real reason, somebody’s credibility is on the line, the president’s. That’s not a reason to kill somebody. There are many reasons to declare acts of war but never, never to save face. I honestly, I have looked at this problem over and over again, and I can’t find one good reason to do it.

You know why this map is behind me? Do you know why we originally put this map up? We put this map up because a few months ago I did a show where I said World War III is coming, and it’s going to happen in Syria. Well look, here we are. Now maybe World War III doesn’t happen. I know The New Yorker is finally coming to their senses, and they said in an article they published yesterday, they said, gee, it looks like 1914, doesn’t it? Yes, it does.

I can find a million reasons why we shouldn’t do this but not one why we should. Is it going to further destabilize Syria? Yep. Is it going to further destabilize the region? Yep. Will it, if this is our deal that we just want to do enough to not get mocked, what do you think the people in the Middle East are going to say about us then? Does it increase our credibility? Does it decrease your gas prices?

I don’t mean to boil it down to that, but that’s where most people are. They don’t give a flying crap about anything unless it affects their gas prices or their groceries, and most of ’em don’t even say anything unless the media is there to tell them oh you know… It’s going to make your gas prices go up. Oil is already at $110. Stock market’s had a rocky few days.

Hundreds of thousands have been murdered, hundreds of thousands, before the alleged chemical weapons killed a few hundred at most. I’m not saying that that’s not bad. It is, but may I just point out that they used machetes, they used machetes on 500,000 people in Rwanda, and we turned the other way. You’re appalled by a few hundred. You’re not appalled by tens of thousands that are dying.

And what caused this unrest in the Middle East? I’ll tell you what caused it. What caused the unrest in Syria was us jumping on the bandwagon and saying people need to stand up and overthrow their regimes, and so they did. And then they did in Libya, and then we helped them there. And then they did in Syria. It’s our fault, and apparently we only care when somebody has used gas on people, not machetes, not bullets, just gas.

Will we bomb after every violation of international law? Can I ask you something? Has the intelligence community, your trust in them, has it increased or decreased since the Iraq war? Because they’re telling us exactly what they said in the Iraq war. It looks like they got that one wrong, huh? What grounds are there to believe anything about the new claims of weapons of mass distraction, and even if they’re absolutely true, should we be involved?

Look, I want to make this very clear, I was for the war in Iraq. I have already said I regretted that, 2006, that fast. I talked about it, we’re not fighting this to win. We’re doing something else they’re not telling us about. The president can also only go to war with a congressional approval. That is the argument from the left. Nope, not now. President can do it around Congress if the U.S. is threatened. Are we being threatened?

What imminent threat does Syria pose to America? If I may quote the left, what has Assad ever done to you? Fighting Assad also means that we are now fighting alongside of Al Qaeda rebels. Remember the guy who cut the heart out of the Syrians and ate it? We’re on his side now. Well, how about this one, we don’t have the money for this. Do you know we have to borrow more money from China or print more money, and do you know that our interest rates just went up by a point?

And by the way, China is against this, so you think they’re going to lend us more money? By the way, it’s not just China. It’s China, Russia, and Iran. Boy, that sounds like a nasty axis power, doesn’t it? If China gives us an ultimatum, we have no leverage. We learned that under Bush. When Bush didn’t have the stones to send back their, you know, riddled with lead paint toys, when they were sending us literally poisonous dog food, and we’re like wait, I don’t know, you know, we love China. Remember that?

You think we have the stones to do this? They own us. Two days of bombing, well, we’re going to show them. What happens after two days of bombing? What happens after two days of bombing if he decides to gas somebody else? What happens if it escalates? What’s the plan? How about this one that I used to hear all the time, what’s the exit strategy?

What does this latest kinetic military action accomplish? I can’t see the upside of engaging America into a civil war in Syria. I can’t see the upside of putting America in such great risk. It’s high risk, low reward. Why would you do that? Well, the guesses have been, you know, the typical stuff – well, you know, Obama hates America. Okay. Well, he’s incompetent. I don’t think so.

He’s just egotistical to believe his own hype that all these things are working. That one’s a possibility. But may I ask you to think like a radical left, a Progressive, one who believes that the U.S. is just too dominant, and we need the UN. The UN should be the ultimate arbiter in global disputes, right? That’s Bill Clinton. That’s Jimmy Carter. That’s this president. It’s the entire left.

Rushing to bomb Syria is not about war. I contend we should consider that it is about peace, and here’s what I mean by that: This administration knows we are on the brink of World War III. The global economy is fragile. Global stability is weak. The West is on the edge. It’s only a matter of time before it crumbles. Iran will eventually lose any remaining restraint and go after Israel. Syria starts spilling across the border. I mean, you know this.

When it all falls apart, and the West is so weakened, who puts it all back together again? You see, war is…after a long period of just running things into the ground, war makes the people of the world forget what the world was like before the war. Beyond that, history shows us that war also just changes all the players. It changes borders. It changes everything.

This time, Russia, China, America, Europe – Europe and America. Is Europe strong? Is America strong? Is China strong? Is Russia strong? Is the UN strong? That’s them. Here’s us. Really? We gather at the UN because we have to stop an international crisis, and everything is teetering on the edge, and people will cry out stop the madness! And so we do the international way.

China has great leverage over us. I mean, why aren’t we listening to them now? I guarantee you we will listen to them at the bargaining table, and we will concede. For instance, if they say look, we’ll forgive your debts, just sign the UN arms treaty, just go under the banner of the UN. This is about destroying sovereignty. The United Nations will in the end broker a deal, making them the new global superpower and making us just one of the guys.

That’s what everybody wants, the United States just to be average like everybody else. That’s what this is about, and quite honestly, this is George Soros’s dream come true.

VIDEO

George Soros: So I think you need a new world order that China has to be part of the process of creating…

Hello, George, is that you? Yes. And when the U.S. dollar is no longer the reserve currency, guess who’s going to be even richer, George Soros, yes. He’s in bed with those who want to control the decline of America. He talks about it – we need a slow gradual decline, and are people going to get hurt? Yes, level out the playing field. He’s getting it, are you?

 

I would love to believe that cruise missiles are stuffed with magic Middle East peace fairy dust, but I don’t think so. I’d love to believe the Muslim Brotherhood will see the light and say you know what, we should live right next to people who believe in Jesus, but I don’t think so. You know what, not only are we going to leave the Jesus people alone, but we’re going to leave the Jews alone too. That ain’t happening, and two days of bombing in Syria is not changing that.

My father used to say to me before you do something, son, what you have to do is you have to make a list, and it’ll be very clear to you. And so I did make a list. I made a list of winners and losers, and I wanted to find out which was which. Because this is the loser board, right? It’s Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic extremists, UN globalists, revolutionaries around the world, anti-American/Western forces, China, Russia. Those are the people we want to lose, right?

And we want to win the Syrian people. We want the Egyptian people. We want the Jordanian people, America, you know, American pocketbooks. We want Israel. We want Europe. We want the West to win. But if you actually do this, and you say okay, how does Al Qaeda lose in Syria? How do the Syrian people win? You can’t, and you do it all the way down the list. The problem is this plan does that. There are your winners. There are your losers.

How in anyone in their right mind want to do any of this? The good guys lose. The bad guys win. Why in the world would we be doing this? Stupidity? Nope. There is some vested interest in assisting radical extremists? Yep. I believe a lot of things about the current administration. They’re not stupid. That is one thing I will never believe.

I believe they are vested deeply in the remolding of the world to their heart’s desire, but to remold it, you have to heat it up first. I don’t often agree with The New Yorker, but they have a great article that takes the form of the conversation for and against, and they mention 1914: “I think Russia isn’t going to let Assad go down. Neither is a Iran or Hezbollah. So they’ll escalate. This could be the thing that triggers an Israel-Iran war, and how do we stay out of that? My God, it feels like August 1914.” It is.

1914 is the year the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. It was the Archduke Ferdinand moment, the moment I’ve been telling you for years I have been dreading and looking for. It is the moment that eventually led to World War I. This is what I said when I was at Fox January 2011.

VIDEO

Glenn: I believe that Tunisia may have been the Archduke Ferdinand moment that I have been warning about. And I’ve been talking about the perfect storm that was formulating, and I said at some point there is going to be an Archduke Ferdinand moment. And it will be something that the world dismisses and most likely you will dismiss at first, and then it will snowball.

That was the Tunisian guy that set himself on fire that the president said was Rosa Parks that encouraged the people in Egypt to stand up, that encouraged the people in Libya to stand up, that encouraged the people in Syria to stand up, and now the global powers are erased. But remember, I’m a conspiracy theorist, and I’m a nut you should dismiss.

Syria is not about teaching Assad a lesson. Two days of bombing probably won’t even seem out of place in Syria today unfortunately. Syria is not a response to the shock and horror of murder. Hundreds of thousands have died before in the latest attacks. The Coptic Christians, they’re not even saying anything about. Syria is this: It is a sick opportunity for the globalist, progressive revolutionaries in our own administration and all around the globe to remold the world closer to their heart’s desire.

Front page image courtesy of the AP

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.