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)

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.