This 100-year-old agreement tells you everything you need to know about the ISIL end game

September 18, 2014

The Glenn Beck Program

It’s the struggle of all struggles, the ultimate quagmire, an abyss of hate and death. Palestinians and Israelis, will it ever end? The answer can be found in one simple word, a word that that will lead us to the end by taking us back to the beginning. On Thursday’s Glenn Beck Program, he explored the only question that matters: Why?

“I think this hour will change your perspective. It will also help you understand what’s really happening with ISIS and ISIL… What is the real objective,” Glenn said. “Out of all of the peace accords and the cease-fires and the nonviolent pledges, none of them ever get to the root of the problem, and that is the ‘why.’ Until the why is addressed, the cycle of violence and hate is just going to continue.”

So how do get to the root of the why? Glenn started with a timeline that many have probably seen before. It included the 2014 Israeli/Hamas conflict, the 2012 Gaza conflict, the Second Intifada (2000), the Fist Intifada, the 1968 Six Day War, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. While most timelines documented the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would end there, Glenn took it a step further – all the way to the beginning of World War I.

“The world is at war for the first time, and it is divided,” Glenn said. “You have the Allied Powers… and then you have in the purple the Central Powers. The Allies: U.S., Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Romania, Serbia. And then the Central Powers, the bad guys, if you will, of World War I: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire.”

Below is a map of detailing the Allied (orange) and Central (purple) Powers:

Unknown

According to Glenn, this map highlights the “root” of the Middle East tensions we have come to know today, and, for the purposes of this show, Glenn was particularly interested in the Ottoman Empire.

“This is the last time the Arab world had a united Islamic state led by a religious leader, the Ottoman Empire, the caliphate,” he explained. “The Allies knew the Ottoman Empire could shut down key shipping routes effectively and then cripple Britain’s economy, France. So they knew the Ottoman Empire was going to be a problem. They had to neutralize it.”

Glenn proceeded to show a map of “Ottoman Syria” – the area that made up the caliphate:

Unknown-1

“Here is a map from 1851 of the Ottoman Syria. It encompassed present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, parts of Iraq and Jordan. This is so critical that you remember this map because this map plays a role today,” Glenn said. “Reestablishing these borderlines, it’s at the center of everything that is happening today.”

Neutralizing the power of the Ottoman Empire was at the center of western strategy at this point in time. Great Britain sent an army officer by the name of T.E. Lawrence to the Middle East to convince Arab leaders to fight against the Ottomans.

“He promised them absolutely everything, the moon and the stars and everything underneath,” Glenn explained, “including one key thing: Rule over a new united Arab kingdom of Greater Syria.”

Lawrence was successful in recruiting forces, but Britain never intended to honor the promises he made. Instead, Britain was busy negotiating with France about how to divide the region. After all, they needed to ensure no united Arab kingdom ever got in way of their economic and societal goals.

Here enters two men who Glenn described as “critical.” Francois Georges-Picot of France and Britain’s Mark Sykes led the negotiations between the two countries that resulted in a whole new set of borders.

On May 16, 1916, Britain, France, and Russia secretly agreed to the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Below is a map illustrating the new borders:

Unknown-2

“The Middle East was now fractured, which, if you keep it fractured, the British and their allies in the region can control it. They wanted it that way,” Glenn said. “So new lines were drawn, and these new lines never existed before. There were no countries like this before, but they existed under Sykes-Picot.”

The Arabs were forced to accept the agreement, and, by 1921, modern problems were starting to manifest themselves. To give the Jews facing persecution in Nazi Germany a place to escape to, Britain drew up a two state Palestine.

Unknown-3

“Two decades before Israel was officially declared a state by the UN, this was happening. Britain and France set the entire structure up for them,” Glenn explained. “It wasn’t about the Jews, and it wasn’t about the Arabs. They were scapegoats.”

The Arab leaders new the only way to consolidate power once again was to unite around a common enemy, and that enemy was the Jews. Through the 1920s and 30s, there were a string of violent acts carried out against Jews in the region. It culminated in the 1936 Arab revolt against British peacekeeping troops.

The true motive of the Arab world becomes clear once you consider what happened in 1947. With the British mandate in Palestine set to expire, the Palestinians were finally offered exactly what they said they wanted: Their own land.

A two state solution was proposed with 56% of the land going to the Jews and 43% to the Arabs. Jerusalem would be international territory. Below is a map of the 1947 UN Partition Plan:

Unknown-4

The Jews accepted the deal. All the Arabs need to do is sign on the dotted line, and the land will be theirs. But, alas, they refuse. Why? Because peace with Israel means the Jewish scapegoat the Arabs were using to cultivate power suddenly goes away.

“If the Palestinian homeland was the goal for the Arab world, not the Palestinians, the Arab world, all they had to do was agree. But remember, the scapegoat goes away,” Glenn said. “If you make peace with Israel, that all goes out the window. So when they were presented with what they said they wanted and always wanted, the nation of their own, they said no. And then all hell broke loose.”

As Glenn explained, there are five key points to keep in mind when considering the history of this conflict:

1. The Sykes-Picot agreement

2. The desire for a united Arab kingdom

3. The quest to regain control of 'Greater Syria'

4. The western desire to maintain economic control of the Middle East

5. The Jewish and Palestinian people are nothing more than pawns in this larger game

After highlighting some of the little known details of the 1948 and 1968 wars, in addition to the dark history of Arab on Arab violence, Glenn drew the all-important parallel between this historical analysis and today’s world.

“I know I read about Sykes-Picot years ago when we were at FOX, and I put up on the chalkboard, and I said, ‘Hey, this is what’s going to happen to the Middle East,’” Glenn recalled. “But it didn’t all fall into place until I learned about ISIS and ISIL and the difference between ISIS and ISIL. Now, it all makes sense to me.”

The ultimate goal of the Arab world is return the Middle East to its pre-Sykes-Picot glory. How do you do that? By destabilizing the region.

“You have to go after the dictators,” Glenn explained. “Our president and all of us have cheered when we got rid of the dictators in Egypt. Yay! A revolution, totally isolated. Libya, yay! A revolution, totally isolated. Iraq, yay! A revolution, totally isolated. Now we’re going after Syria. Yeah, let’s get him! Totally isolated. Who’s next?”

Earlier this week, Glenn explained the important distinction between ISIS and ISIL on his radio program. While ISIS stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. What modern countries make up the Levant? Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and… Israel

“The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, that’s the difference between ISIL and ISIS. The L stands for Levant. It stands for this part all the way down to Egypt,” Glenn said. “They’re doing nothing but remolding the map closer to their heart’s desire and what they were promised 100 years ago. Now is their opportunity to achieve what they’ve always wanted from the very beginning, a return to a unified Arab kingdom—what a surprise, a caliphate, Islamic rule.”

Until this region is returned to Arab control, the fighting will not end. There is no easy or obvious solution, but, now more than ever, it is important that Americans and westerners understand the facts so they can understand the end game.

“Our responsibility is to first tell the truth, because you know what? You know who’s a pawn? It’s the Israelis, the Palestinians,” he said. “And the American people, the Canadian citizen, the British citizen, the French citizen, all the citizens of the world that have shed their blood and their treasure over there for nothing but a mountain of lies. Tell the truth.”

“Please, take this broadcast and spread it,” Glenn concluded. “This is important information. Before we rush into another war, we’d better at least know what this one’s all about.”

You can watch the episode on-demand HERE.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

This 100-year-old agreement tells you everything you need to know about the ISIL end game

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Peace through strength

Names matter

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

Narrative engineering from the top

Institutional and media coordination

Surveillance and suppression

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Peace requires concessions

Peace or bloodshed?

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Outsourcing presence

Reclaiming our humanity