Landmark?! Buck Sexton and Stu weigh in on the Iran nuclear deal

On Tuesday, the headlines screamed a landmark deal has been reached on an Iran nuclear program. Everyone is confident that this deal will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The world is praising the arduous Iran nuclear talks as a historic agreement. The only thing this deal is going to be remembered for is supporting the anecdote, this period of American weakness in future history books.

Stu: Here to give us the latest on why the Iranian deal is not the happy rainbow sunshine agreement the media wants you to believe is our own Buck Sexton. Buck, welcome to the program.

Buck: Good to see you, Stu.

Stu: Am I wrong in this? You’re not exactly, I would say, the guy who’s going to shine some happy rainbows on a situation like this, but is there anything positive to take from this agreement?

Buck: I’d like to think that I’m always about happy rainbows, Stu, but no, there’s nothing really positive to say about the agreement from the perspective of what this will do to the Iranian nuclear program. Look, from the Obama administration’s perspective, it’s great because there’s no way that they will be—first of all, he’s not going to be held accountable. He’s not running for election again, and by the time the pitfalls of the deal—it’s very intricate.

I read through the text of it today. It deals with all kinds of things, banking sanctions and trade, and it even specifies that Iran can export pistachios, rugs, and caviar to the US if certain stipulations are met, so there’s a tremendous amount of specificity, which obviously means there’s a lot of room for kind of maneuvering and quibbling and well, what does this subsection really mean? Then you get the place of well, what does a violation really look like? What’s enough of a violation for there to be the snapback sanctions supposedly coming back into place?

By the time we figure all that out, Stu, the Obama administration will be done, and it will be some other president in office. The claim will be of course that well, it’s just because of what that new president, whoever it is or whoever she is, is going to be doing about this situation, not that President Obama signed this in the first place. From a legacy perspective, it’s a huge win. From a we don’t want to see a thermonuclear Middle East that’s pointing missiles at each other, it’s a really bad deal.

Stu: Well, first of all, I’m very excited for some Iranian pistachio ice cream which is on the way very soon. That’s going to be pretty exciting. At least that’s one upside of this deal. I think from that perspective, you have a situation where the United States has a standing in the world where we’re supposed to be, I guess at least at the very least good actors, positive actors in calming things down. I know we get criticized for this all the time, but here’s a situation where it seems like legacy-wise, these peace agreements live completely separate from the reality they create. Like Jimmy Carter is praised for a historic peace deal, but we haven’t seen peace since that peace deal.

Arafat gets Nobel Peace Prizes. These things aren’t realistic, and so you can see the motivation of why Obama would chase after this and make what looks like a terrible deal.

Buck: No, I think that this was all set up to be exactly this, this moment in time when the administration, by the way, can really rewrite the history in a sense or at least sort of change the way historians will view and will talk about the Obama administration’s foreign policy which has been—we all hear terms like a legacy of failure, but it’s really stark with the Obama administration how bad it’s been, whether it’s the Russian reset or the pivot to Asia, red lines in Syria with chemical weapons, preventing genocide, by the way, in Syria.

President Obama stood at the Holocaust Museum in 2012 and was saying never again and had this whole range of policy options we would deploy to make sure that exactly what is happening now in Syria and Iraq, specifically in the Christian communities there as well as other religious minorities, would not happen again. It is happening. The president is too busy with other things.

So, when you talk about peace, we’re not right now recognizing that Iran has been at war really with the US for a number of years, and the Iranian regime hasn’t changed one bit. They haven’t changed their willingness to engage in support to terrorism. In fact, we’re pulling off the conventional restraints over a period of either five or eight years, depending on what part of the deal. It’s five for sort of conventional munitions, eight for ballistic missile technology.

That was originally, Stu, never even in the picture. The idea that now we’re going to say not only are we going to allow you and sort of bless your nuclear program, but on top of that, yeah, the Russian arms bazaar, go for it, see what you can pick up there. Whatever China will sell you, that’s also yours to keep. This is a disaster.

Stu: Yeah.

Buck: The only thing that you could sort of tell yourself makes this a little better, Stu, or tell oneself that this is better is that a president in the future will have the option of taking action. Okay, well, they’ll have the option of taking action against a very rich, completely re-armed, nuclear-capable Iranian country with 70 million people in it. I mean, that’s not an easy option.

Stu: You’re totally right. This is what, I think, it destroys the entire argument that this is a good deal is what you just brought up, which is the way they’re describing it in the media is every single step we can watch them, and if they break one of these clauses, we can bring the sanctions back, which okay, let’s say a different president might try that or whatever. First of all, when the punishment is the status quo, the situation they already had, I don’t what the negative is for them because there’s no punishment. It’s not worse than they used to have it, it’s just the same as they used to have it. But beyond that—

Buck: This is exactly right.

Stu: Beyond that, though, you’re going to have a situation where they’re going to be a wealthier nation if we were to try to do this. Plus you have other countries that have to be on board with us. If those countries, like Russia, who’s getting all the money from the conventional weapons, decides hey, we don’t want to be part of the new sanctions again, the whole thing falls apart.

Buck: Yeah, snapback sanctions are a fantasy, and every objective observer, including observers of sort of foreign policy, foreign policy analysts that tend to be sort of Democrat in their leadings and pro-Obama are like look, snapback sanctions are just not going to happen. Once you open up the markets to China, Russia, and other countries, European countries. Look at what happened with oil for food in the UN and Saddam. That’s the other part of this, Stu. We’ve sort of been to this dance before. We know how this all turns out. There were supposed to be immediate, on-the-spot inspections in Iraq, and we were supposed to prevent them from doing all this. The reality is that at what point does the agreement kick into a real punishment for certain violations?

The Iranians are going to claim at every turn—look at how much it took just to get to this point of the negotiations, right? The Iranians will say well, that’s not a real violation, or we’ll deal with that, or we’ll get back to you in 30 days or whatever it may be, and at no point are we going to be willing to say well, now we’re going to walk away from this deal entirely unless they just brazenly go for nukes, and at that point it will be too late.

So, the idea that, and you got on this in the beginning, Stu, that we’re going to punish them with sanctions, well, we were punishing them with sanctions, and President Obama said well, let’s stop doing that and talk a little bit. And now we think that we’re going to get them to change their behavior with the threat of sanctions when they didn’t change their behavior in the first place because of the initial sanctions.

We have rested no concession from Iran. The entire program continues on more or less as is. They mothball some things, they send away some spent fuel. They keep the whole infrastructure, even the illegal nuclear facility they had, even the heavy water facility. They keep everything. What is the hard concession they make?

Stu: Yeah, I think it’s what, in eight years they’re able to potentially acquire advanced nuclear technologies that observers believe they could turn into a bomb in weeks, and that’s only eight years away. Again, that’s eight years of us supposedly catching them. You know, Buck, that as soon as they do something wrong, which they will, and they will violate this agreement and they will probably get caught, what we will say is look, yeah, we could bring sanctions back, but that would blow up this historic deal, so we can’t do it.

Buck: Of course, so it puts us in constraints automatically. By the way, the former head of the IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, said that if at this point in time—this was a few months ago, but if at that point in time the Iranians didn’t have an illegal nuclear program meant specifically for military purpose, it will be the first time in 20 years, okay? So, we’re assuming also on top of all this that without pre-inspections, by the way, which we have not had that somehow we’ll be able to do a full accounting of everything. I mean, we’ve walked away from so much of what was initially held by the Obama administration, by the Obama administration, to be sacrosanct here.

They would have to come clean on the whole previous program, what they were doing up to this point, all the military uses and that we weren’t going to keep conventional sanctions or put those on the table as well for all of this. There’s so much that we’ve essentially caved on. When you look at what you really get in this agreement, it’s just really an agreement to continue to talk and get in this back-and-forth with the Iranians.

Ultimately all this boils down to, do you believe the Iranians are going to change their behavior, that the inherent nature of the regime is going to be something different in five or ten years? I think the answer is no. And do you think that at some point they’re going to go nuclear, and they want nuclear weapons? I think the answer is yes. I think everything else is kind of just getting into the details of the agreement without really looking at what’s at stake.

Stu: Yeah, and of course you could just see what kind of agreement it was for us by the people celebrating it, Assad and Iran and Russia. It’s plain as day. Buck, you know this stuff better than anybody, and you really do boil down into the nooks and crannies of this. I was kind of interested to see today the world reaction to it, which was overwhelmingly positive. Now, of course, the world looks at this as saying good, America got screwed essentially. That’s probably the way they’re looking at it.

I was listening to the BBC this morning, and they had, first of all, a guest on who was claiming the only reason there will be any opposition to this at all is because of the high finance of the Jews in the American media, which I thought was a tad anti-Semitic, especially if they ranted on for about ten minutes. But then they had a guy on from the Likud party, who said look, we are keeping all options on the table here.

The woman on the BBC screamed at him and said what do you mean you’re keeping all options on the table? Why is it that you are not interested in peace, a supposed journalist? To which he responded look, we are in a situation where we need to be able to defend ourselves if we feel threatened, and she screamed at him and said you are not under threat from Iran, period.

Buck: Rouhani, who’s the moderate, apparently, in Iran, that’s how they describe him—it’s sort of like saying the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate in comparison to Al Qaeda, but Rouhani, who’s a relative moderate here, was tweeting out today that it’s good that the world—this is sort of a paraphrase, but it’s good that the world didn’t believe the lies of the Zionist entity, which is of course aggressive on many levels, including the fact that they refuse to acknowledge that there is this country called Israel that is a United Nations member, and the rest of the international community accepts as such, at least a lot of it accepts as such. Not all countries do, obviously, but the Iranians continue to have this sort of bellicose rhetoric.

What we’ve done though is really boxed the Israelis in. We had the Iranians boxed in. Let’s just make that very clear. Their currency was in freefall. Their economy was being strangled. There was opposition to this sclerotic evil regime on the streets of Tehran from the beginning of the Obama administration, by the way. So, there was already a sort of jumpstart.

He didn’t touch that. He didn’t want to get involved. This was back in 2009, 2010. He didn’t want to do anything about that, but now what we’ve seen is President Obama has pulled the constraints off of Iran to get this deal. He went into this saying anything to get a deal is what we’re going to do, which is never how you want to negotiate. The Israelis are now the ones who are constrained because if they do, and I think when they say all options are on the table, they are serious about it. If they do something against the regime, if they go after nuclear sites in Iran, they will be in flagrant violation of this huge, wonderful agreement that’s going to create peace throughout the Middle East, and the Iranians don’t want any bad blood. They don’t want anything like that at all.

The Israelis will have to deal with the fallout from that, and that will include the entire Muslim world. It will conclude all the Europeans. It will include a whole bunch of countries, and it’s because of this deal. The Israelis would literally have to think that Iran is about to go nuclear, has gone nuclear, and they must strike now or else they are in peril for the survival of their state. Otherwise, they won’t strike.

Stu: Israel having to deal with the fallout is a very good way of putting that, Buck, because that is kind of what we’re actually looking at here in this particular situation.

Buck: A double entendre, unfortunately, yeah.

Stu: Let’s go back to the domestic side of this for a second. There is of course this hope. I know Iran has a supreme leader. They can do whatever they want. There is this hope that Congress could theoretically act and stop this, but to me, looking at it on its face, I mean, they might block the bill, but they’re not going to be able to override this veto. Is that how you’re reading this?

Buck: Yeah, I think that this is going to go through. I think the president would veto it without the number of votes needed to override. They’re not going to get to that number. Look, what’s the most important thing to Democrats in the House and the Senate at this point? Really the legacy of the Obama administration but really the legacy of the Democratic Party, and they’re trying to sort of show themselves as we’re the party that doesn’t go to war. We’re the party that gets deals done and figures it out through diplomacy, and so they won’t undercut the administration. Despite the fact that there has been a lot of bipartisan criticism of this, I can’t see the Democrats coming along with Republicans in large enough numbers to override a presidential veto on this.

I think we’re probably stuck with it, and yet again, here we are Republicans have the House and the Senate, and it feels like nothing has changed since the last election. I’m still waiting for them to do something, to put something even in front of President Obama, even if he were to veto it, we say well, at least they’re moving the ball down the field and they’re getting the conversation going in this country.

On this issue, yeah, there are some voices that I think have done a pretty good job of outlining why this Obama deal—I mean, the president was hell-bent on getting this done. There was nothing that was going to prevent this. You cannot go into a negotiation that way. They gave away the store. I mean, Stu, this was an exercise that I did before today with another friend who’s an expert on national security. I said find me the painful concession. What is the thing that the Iranians had to say, “Okay, I guess we’ll do that”? Get access to $100 billion in frozen funds? Stop spinning some of the centrifuges they’re allowed to keep?

This is preposterous on its face, but again, for domestic political reasons, it’s going to be celebrated as a huge victory. This shows us that President Obama is the international relations genius that the left in this country has been holding him up to be despite all of the problems of the past. This will wipe all of that away. Hope and change, there you go.

Stu: There you go. Buck Sexton, great insight, man. It’s an amazing day. It’s an amazing day. Thanks for coming on.

Buck: Stu, it’s amazing, all right. Thanks.

Stu: I was actually seeing the BBC was mentioning what they thought that big concession was, which was that they will disclose what they have done in the past as far as what they’ve done with nuclear weapons development. Wow, we get a tall tale about what they used to do with nuclear weapons. What a win, Obama! What a win!

5 SURPRISING ways space tech is used in your daily life

NASA / Handout | Getty Images

Is your vacuum cleaner from SPACE?

This week, Glenn is discussing his recent purchase of a Sputnik satellite, which has got many of us thinking about space and space technology. More specifically, we've been wondering how technology initially designed for use outside Earth's atmosphere impacted our lives down here on terra firma. The U.S. spent approximately $30 billion ($110 billion in today's money) between the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957 and the Moon Landing in 1969. What do we have to show for it besides some moon rocks?

As it turns out, a LOT of tech originally developed for space missions has made its way into products that most people use every day. From memory foam to cordless vacuums here are 5 pieces of space tech that you use every day:

Cellphone camera

LOIC VENANCE / Contributor | Getty Images

Have you ever seen a photograph of an early camera, the big ones with the tripod and curtain, and wondered how we went from that to the tiny little cameras that fit inside your cellphone? Thank NASA for that brilliant innovation. When you are launching a spaceship or satellite out of the atmosphere, the space onboard comes at a premium. In order to make more room for other equipment, NASA wanted smaller, lighter cameras without compromising image quality, and the innovations made to accomplish this goal paved the way for the cameras in your phone.

Cordless vacuums and power tools

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

When exploring the moon, NASA wanted astronauts to use a drill to collect samples from the lunar surface. The problem: the moon has a severe lack of electrical outlets to power the drills. NASA tasked Black & Decker with developing a battery-powered motor powerful enough to take chunks out of the moon. The resulting motor was later adapted to power cordless power tools and vacuums in households across America.

Infrared ear thermometer

BSIP / Contributor | Getty Images

What do distant stars and planets have in common with your eardrum? Both have their temperature read by the same infrared technology. The thermometers that can be found in medicine cabinets and doctors' offices across the world can trace their origins back to the astronomers at NASA who came up with the idea to measure the temperature of distant objects by the infrared light they emit.

Grooved pavement

Bob Riha Jr / Contributor | Getty Images

This one may seem obvious, but sometimes you need a massively complicated problem to come up with simple solutions. During the Space Shuttle program, NASA had a big problem: hydroplaning. Hydroplaning is dangerous enough when you are going 70 miles an hour in your car, but when you're talking about a Space Shuttle landing at about 215 miles per hour, it's an entirely different animal. So what was NASA's space-age solution? Cutting grooves in the pavement to quickly divert water off the runway, a practice now common on many highways across the world.

Memory foam

BERTRAND LANGLOIS / Stringer | Getty Images

If you've ever slept on a memory foam mattress, it probably won't come as a shock to find out that the foam was created to cushion falls from orbit. Charles Yotes was an astronautical engineer who is credited with the invention of memory foam. Yotes developed the technology for the foam while working on the recovery system for the Apollo command module. The foam was originally designed to help cushion the astronauts and their equipment during their descent from space. Now, the space foam is used to create some of the most comfortable mattresses on Earth. Far out.

5 most HORRIFIC practices condoned by WPATH

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Whatever you know about the "trans movement" is only the tip of the iceberg.

In a recent Glenn TV special, Glenn delved into Michael Schellenberger's "WPATH files," a collection of leaked internal communications from within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Glenn's research team got their hands on the WPATH files and compiled the highlights in Glenn's exclusive PDF guide which can be downloaded here. These documents reveal the appalling "standards" created and upheld by WPATH, which appear to be designed to allow radical progressive surgeons to perform bizarre, experimental, and mutilating surgeries on the dime of insurance companies rather than to protect the health and well-being of their patients. These disturbing procedures are justified in the name of "gender-affirming care" and are defended zealously as "life-saving" by the dogmatic surgeons who perform them.

The communications leaked by Schellenberger reveal one horrific procedure after another committed in the name of and defended by radical gender ideology and WPATH fanatics. Here are five of the most horrifying practices condoned by WPATH members:

1.Trans surgeries on minors as young as 14

One particular conversation was initiated by a doctor asking for advice on performing irreversible male-to-female surgery on a 14-year-old boy's genitals. WPATH doctors chimed in encouraging the surgery. One doctor, Dr. McGinn, confessed that he had performed 20 such surgeries on minors over the last 17 years!

2.Amputation of healthy, normal limbs

BIID, or Body Integrity Identity Disorder, is an “extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or who desire a paralysis.” As you might suspect, some WPATH members are in favor of enabling this destructive behavior. One WPATH commenter suggested that people suffering from BIID received "hostile" treatment from the medical community, many of whom would recommend psychiatric care over amputation. Apparently, telling people not to chop off perfectly healthy limbs is now considered "violence."

3.Trans surgeries on patients with severe mental illnesses

WPATH claims to operate off of a principle known as "informed consent," which requires doctors to inform patients of the risks associated with a procedure. It also requires patients be in a clear state of mind to comprehend those risks. However, this rule is taken very lightly among many WPATH members. When one of the so-called "gender experts" asked about the ethicality of giving hormones to a patient already diagnosed with several major mental illnesses, they were met with a tidal wave of backlash from their "enlightened" colleges.

4.Non-standard procedures, such as “nullification” and other experimental, abominable surgeries

If you have never heard of "nullification" until now, consider yourself lucky. Nullification is the removal of all genitals, intending to create a sort of genderless person, or a eunuch. But that's just the beginning. Some WPATH doctors admitted in these chatlogs that they weren't afraid to get... creative. They seemed willing to create "custom" genitals for these people that combine elements of the two natural options.

5.Experimental, untested, un-researched, use of carcinogenic drugs 

Finasteride is a drug used to treat BPH, a prostate condition, and is known to increase the risk of high-grade prostate cancer as well as breast cancer. Why is this relevant? When a WPATH doctor asked if anyone had used Finasteride "to prevent bottom growth," which refers to the healthy development of genitals during puberty. The answer from the community was, "That's a neat idea, someone should give it a go."

If your state isn’t on this list, it begs the question... why?

The 2020 election exposed a wide range of questionable practices, much of which Glenn covered in a recent TV special. A particularly sinister practice is the use of private money to fund the election. This money came from a slew of partisan private sources, including Mark Zuckerberg, entailed a host of caveats and conditions and were targeted at big city election offices— predominantly democratic areas. The intention is clear: this private money was being used to target Democrat voters and to facilitate their election process over their Republican counterparts.

The use of private funds poses a major flaw in the integrity of our election, one which many states recognized and corrected after the 2020 election. This begs the question: why haven't all states banned private funding in elections? Why do they need private funding? Why don't they care about the strings attached?

Below is the list of all 28 states that have banned private funding in elections. If you don't see your state on this list, it's time to call your state's election board and demand reform.

Alabama

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Arizona

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Arkansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Florida

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Georgia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Idaho

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Indiana

Photo 12 / Contributor

Iowa

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kentucky

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Louisiana

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Mississippi

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Missouri

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Montana

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Nebraska

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

North Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

North Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Ohio

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Oklahoma

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Pennsylvania

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Tennessee

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Texas

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Utah

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Virginia

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

West Virginia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Wisconsin

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

POLL: Was Malaysia Flight 370 taken by a WORMHOLE?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It's hard to know what's real and what's fake anymore.

With the insanity that seems to grow every day, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what's true and what's not, what to believe, and what to reject. Anything seems possible.

That's why Glenn had Ashton Forbes on his show, to explore the fringe what most people would consider impossible. Forbes brought Glenn a fascinating but far-out theory that explains the decade-old disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 along with riveting footage that supposedly corroborates his story. Like something out of a sci-fi novel, Forbes made the startling claim that Flight 370 was TELEPORTED via a U.S. military-made wormhole! As crazy as that sounds, the video footage along with Forbes' scientific research made an interesting, if not compelling case.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the U.S. Government can create wormholes? Did they use one to abduct Flight 370? Is the government hiding futuristic tech from the rest of the world? Let us know in the poll below:

Does the military have the capability to create wormholes?

Is the U.S. military somehow responsible for what happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

Is the military in possession of technology beyond what we believe to be possible?

Do you think American military tech is ahead of the other superpowers?

Do you think there would be negative consequences if secret government technology was leaked?