Why the deal President Obama made with Iran is the worst possible deal

July 15, 2015

WRITER

Everyone is heralding the Iran nuclear deal as “historic”, but it could end up being remembered as one of the most dangerous agreements brokered in recent history. As Pat and Stu pointed out on radio this morning, this deal guarantees that the sanctions restricting Iran from building a nuclear weapon will undoubtedly never return. In a few years, the country will be able to amass pretty most kinds of conventional weapons. In ten years, they’ll be able to have ballistic missiles. Could we see an arms race in the Middle East? Pat and Stu have the story and more reasons why this has endangered not only the Middle East but the world.

Listen to the story in the opening moments of today's podcast, and scroll down for a transcript of this segment:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

PAT: Pat and Stu in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. 877-727-BECK. Glenn is recovering, resting his vocal cords as much as he can getting ready for his return August 3rd. Kind of when we're scheduled. So there will be plenty of time to get ready between that time when he returns and 8/28 with Birmingham. So everybody is talking about how we now have peace. Everybody in the Obama administration. We now have peace. This is something nobody else could do. We finally got done what these other idiots before us, the other 42 just couldn't manage to do. Peace with Iran. And it's going to be a lasting peace. There's no threat now of Iran building a nuclear weapon.

I mean, sure, they could buy -- they could buy conventional weapons from Russia now and use those on whoever they want at any time they want. And in a few years, they could also restart their nuclear program. But we've kicked that can down the road a little bit, so we're pretty excited about it.

STU: We sure have, Pat. And the idea that you would allow Iran to buy conventional weapons from Russia, pretty much guarantees the idea that the sanctions will never be reversed. Because we're talking about a half trillion of dollars pouring into the country in which they can spend a large portion of that -- first of all, it will go to sandals four needy children. That's number one, I know. Number two, pancake batter for Middle East pancakes. Defeat the hungry. There will be all sorts of delicious treats?

PAT: Falafels.

STU: They do have falafels. Once that's all taken care of, they do have a few dollars to purchase the weapons from Russia. So this is of course giving Russia and several other countries lots have motivation to keep these things -- the sanctions away in the future. So all of the sticks, as opposed to the carrots in this agreement, will never be in place because the other countries won't come along. We can sit here all we want and say, well, we have a -- we have a possibility -- there's so many -- there's a dead end everywhere they go, if they try to do anything outside of this agreement.

The other issue, as you bring up, Pat, even if they stay within the agreement, they are far more dangerous than they were yesterday. Far more dangerous. They're able to buy all sorts of conventional weapons. They're able to stockpile them. Even if we were to turn on the sanctions later on, we would be turning on sanctions to a much wealthier nation, a nation that is no longer at the brink because of the sanctions in the first place. They were able to recover. Even if we were to sanction them again, which we won't, then it would be a tougher job. It would be less effective. It really -- it is in many ways the worst of both worlds.

PAT: Yeah, the president was saying yesterday that this is an agreement not based in trust. We won't just trust them. This is based on verification.

In fact, representative Don Beyer, who is a Democrat from Virginia, he said on MSNBC yesterday that he would vote for the Iran deal because thanks to the Obama administration's negotiations, Iran's nuclear program will be under lock, key, and camera, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

STU: Wow, really?

PAT: Yep, except no. The eyes of the international community are on every centrifuge, every ounce of uranium in all of Iran's nuclear facilities, except for, again, no. It's completely false. UN inspectors can demand access to nuclear facilities on Iran military sites, but they aren't immediate, and they aren't guaranteed.

STU: Yeah. The immediate is the fantastic part. If I ask for access to a site, they have 14 days to get back to me. Fourteen days. To say, hey, you know what --

PAT: Yeah. And it needs to be approved by a joint commission.

STU: Yeah. And if you can't come to an agreement, if I say, Pat, I want to come over at 3:00 a.m. next Tuesday, then you have 14 days to say -- well, in this particular case you have to be 14 days out. Fourteen days, and you say to me, no, I can't come to an agreement of what time. 3 o'clock just won't work for me. I'll be watching a marathon of Desperate Housewives. I say to you, okay, well, now we need to go to a commission. That commission is seven days they have to decide for the commission. So now we're at 21. Then you have three more days to reply after that. 24 days.

PAT: Twenty-four days.

STU: It's a joke!

PAT: Are you telling me that in the year 2015, a country can't move whatever it is they need to move away from the -- the place that's about to be inspected in 24 days? In almost a month to get rid of any evidence and then bring it right on back.

STU: The society has come up with not only nuclear technology, but also wheels.

PAT: I understand they now have wheels in Iran.

PAT: Yeah, and trucks. And they can theoretically drive those trucks somewhere else in the cover of night with one of 24 opportunities to get it somewhere else. Now, look, is there a -- theoretically, a giant centralized area that would be difficult to tear down and move around in 24 days? Sure. But there's a lot they can do. They can essentially do what they're doing, but they have to be more careful about it. And what do we get out of that? We get the opportunity to just make money flow into this country, up to, they think, a half trillion dollars will be the benefit for Iran here.

A half trillion dollars flows into this country. And what do we get out of it? The right to no longer sanction them.

PAT: And we didn't get our four people back. We didn't get our four Americans back. We just left them there.

STU: Sad.

PAT: I thought we didn't leave anybody behind. In fact, it seems like the administration said that when they made that massive exchange for what's-his-face?

STU: Bowe Bergdahl.

PAT: Yeah, the traitor. The deserter. And one of the excuses they used for sending five nasty murderers in exchange for one guy who deserted his unit was, well, yeah, this is America we don't leave anybody behind. Well, what are you talking about? You left four people behind to be killed in Benghazi. And you left these four Americans in Iran to be left behind.

STU: That's a throwaway in this negotiation. You know what, it's one of those things, where you walk in and you're about to sign the papers, and you say, oh, wait, obviously we get those four guys back, right? That's happening.

PAT: Obviously those four.

STU: I just don't see that in here. Can you just add that little addendum at the end?

It shouldn't even be a negotiating point.

PAT: Yeah. They can still proclaim this was a massive victory given to them by Allah. Go ahead. Don't mention you gave back these four. Who is going to know?

STU: That is a great point. I guess maybe it would come out in the American press. But they say everything in the American press is fake anyway. They could easily find a way out of that, if they wanted to maintain it. Again, they're getting half a trillion dollars. I think the Iranian people would be like, all right, those four people, eh, we let them go, for half a trill. We're giving away terrorists to get one guy back. Not even a guy -- a guy who deserted his post. It's unbelievable.

Of course, the fact that they're trying to sell this as this monumental achievement is just embarrassing. That's John Kerry for you. He's going to come out -- he's making these -- they put so much into this that you can negotiate with people like this. We all realize that down the road, what happens? They break the agreement. Then they believe to us, the American people. And they say, yes, look, technically they're in breach of this contract. But this is a historic document. This is a historic agreement. We can't throw it away because they made one little breach. This is going to happen. There's a back-and-forth. There's a flow to these things. And, yes, of course, sometimes they'll do things we don't like. But if we overact, we'll blow up a historic achievement. Now just the fact that it was signed is an achievement. When you go and you negotiate a new contract in the NFL and you sign the deal, but they don't give you any money, it's not a historic achievement.

PAT: You got 1.50 a year. But only 85 cents of that is guaranteed. That's a historic agreement! But that's what this administration has done since the beginning. They find a way to make something that was a tragic mistake, really, on their part. An incredibly historic or unprecedented event. They're really good at it. And then they lie about it. You know, if you like your plan you can keep your plan.

I didn't call the Islamic State the JV team. How many times have we been lied to by these people? Over and over -- I will -- I won't have a single lobbyist in my administration. Well, except for the 64. I didn't mean those 64.

STU: Everyone is going to --

PAT: I said a single one. I don't have a single one. There are 64 of them.

STU: Pat, there is a historic pronouncement to say there would be no lobbyists. Yes, you'll have your 64 that will filter in. If you call me out on that, we're blowing up this historic promise I made about lobbyists.

PAT: Historic. They are good at that. I don't remember Bush doing that. Do you? I don't even remember Clinton calling everything historic and unprecedented or -- but that's been their MO their whole administration.

STU: Well, the thing is, everything he does is the first time a black president has done it. So everything is historic. Just call everything historic. Year seven of his presidency, we're still saying it's historic that he's doing things.

Featured Image: WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 15: U.S President Barack Obama pauses during a news conference in the East Room of the White House in response to the Iran nuclear deal on July 15, 2015 in Washington, DC. The landmark deal will limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for relief from international sanctions. The agreement, which comes after almost two years of diplomacy, has also been praised by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani but condemned by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

'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 resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

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 dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

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 Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

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?

Glenn's Show Prep