Glenn Beck: Iran unrest continues




Surrender Is Not an Option


By John Bolton

 - Buy from Amazon


 - Buy from Barnes & Noble

GLENN: So, you know, I don't want this to sound wrong because I think if President Reagan were in the White House, we would have a much different stance on this and I think the outcome might even be different. I think Ronald Reagan would have said that the Mullahs and the Ayatollah over there, it's an evil empire and the people should rise up and grab their freedom while they can. But we don't have that as a president. We have a guy who's, you know, wishy‑washy at best it seems, and I can't for the life of me figure out what difference this is going to make unless it's a true revolution and the people actually take their power back.

BOLTON: Well, I think that's right. We are in a potential revolutionary situation in Iran, although I don't think things are going in the right direction from that perspective, at least as of now. But I think Obama is pursuing a policy that's fundamentally different than the kind of policy Reagan pursued against the Soviet Union, ultimately successfully. I think the right policy is a new government in Tehran and not just Mousavi versus Ahmadinejad but the overthrow of the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the creation of a truly representative government. That is not Obama's policy. Regime change is not Obama's policy. His policy is to try and negotiate with whomever ends up on top in Iran about their nuclear weapons program, and I think that's the fundamental reason he hasn't said very much at all. He torqued up his rhetoric a little bit over the weekend, probably more in response to domestic U.S. political pressure than anything else, but there is no evidence at all that his policy of trying to negotiate with the regime over the weapons program has changed one iota.

GLENN: Isn't this a result really of the Bush administration? I mean, it's always been my theory that Iraq was a secondary target. I mean, I believe that they actually believe that, you know, Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction, et cetera, et cetera, but really the idea was the head of the snake over there is Iran and if you could pop that by putting democracy on both sides of it, the people would rise up and they would take their country because they would see. They would say, oh, my gosh, look what's happening, and it would catch on and they would see that they could possibly rise up and take their country back. A, do you buy into that theory; and B, if so, isn't what's happening there now because of what we've done in the Middle East and George Bush's policy of regime change?

BOLTON: Well, you know, if anything the Iranians should have been very grateful to the Bush administration for having overthrown the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, thus for moving Iran's two biggest enemies. But obviously that wasn't on the Mullahs' mind. They have got their own agenda which includes dominance within the Islamic world, becoming a hegemonic power in the Persian Gulf and beyond. I think that the groundwork for what we're seeing in Iran today has been laid over a 30‑year period. This regime in Iran is not popular and I think the people there, for a variety of reasons, economic reasons, desire not to be oppressed by harsh Sharia law, ethnic dissatisfaction, that all of that put together left the Mullahs in a very weak position and this obviously stolen election was the spark that united it. Now, whether that will be enough to overturn the regime itself, I don't know. But the Iranians and particularly the young Iranians, population under 30's about 2/3, 70% of the total population. So that's a lot of people. They are educated, they are sophisticated, they know they could have a different life, they see what has happened in Iraq with the elections there. They see what's happened in Afghanistan, particularly the women, to see this new opportunity. And I think the evidence is all around. I think what they may not have counted on was the brutality of the Mullahs and the lack of outside support, particularly from the United States.

GLENN: What difference would it make if President Obama did what President Reagan did in Poland, which was, we're with you; we stand right beside you? We didn't go into Poland, at least overtly. We didn't go into Poland but I mean, we stood by them. What difference would that make?

BOLTON: Well, I think it would make an incredible difference, but I would stress that the support has to be more than rhetorical. You see our friends in Europe are much farther out front rhetorically than President Obama is but that's typical of the Europeans. They don't have any skin in this game and talk is what they do. That's what their leaders are expert in. I think to use your analogy of Reagan and Poland, we were providing support back then just as rudimentary as fax machines and primitive computers, but that was the Twitter of the 1980s. Reagan went beyond rhetorical support. We did provide concrete support for overtly and covertly for solidarity and did other things in Poland. That's what we should have been doing frankly during the Bush administration, quietly preparing for these circumstances. The fact is that the demonstrators, the people in Tehran and the other cities now are face to face with the Islamic revolutionary guards court. They are the people with t he weapons, they are fanatics, they are the ultimate defenders of the Islamic revolution. And assuming they hold together, and that is at least a question, although there's no evidence they are about to break apart that I can see. But assuming the revolutionary guards hold together, the people out in the streets of Tehran are badly outgunned and in a confrontation there isn't any question who will win.

GLENN: Do they have any guns? Do the people have a right to have a firearm over there?

BOLTON: I don't think there's a strong Second Amendment in Iran and, you know, I think ‑‑

GLENN: There's barely a strong Second Amendment here.

BOLTON: Well, that's a different story that's for sure but, you know, this is ‑‑ they are showing great courage by going out into the streets, and I think we saw how brutal the regime is prepared to be by the way it cracked down on the demonstrators on Saturday with depending on who you want to believe between 10 and perhaps as many as 150 killed. Let me just say when it comes to repression, what you saw on Saturday was nothing compared to what the revolutionary guards would be prepared to do. The Mullahs, the top Mullahs, the supreme leader see what's happening as a threat to the revolution itself, and since this is a theocratic government that believes in answers only to God and that actually only notice what God's will is, it's not deterred by outpourings of public sentiment to the contrary. So I hope people are not carried away by adrenaline here. The potential for a confrontation and conflict in the streets of Tehran and elsewhere I think is very real and it could be very bloody.

GLENN: What happens ‑‑ what do we do then?

BOLTON: Well, I ‑‑

GLENN: Would we even see the pictures at that point?

BOLTON: Well, you raise a very good point because the regime is shutting down sources of information, expelling and detaining Western reporters, interfering with communications. It appears to be a very sustained effort on their part to reduce visibility inside the country, and I think that's a predicate obviously for further repression, further arrests of dissident leaders and for violence in the streets. Had we been doing more over the past several years, then I think we might be in a position to do more in response to a further crackdown. Honestly I don't think we've got the foundations in place to do that, and I'll say again here we are almost 10 days after the election and President Obama has given zero evidence, zero evidence that he's prepared to rethink his policy of negotiating with the regime under whatever guise that might be in power. That I think is what's driving him and, you know, we'll see what happens over the course of this week but I think he in a way is proceeding on a theological basis that if only he can get around the negotiating table with the regime, he can talk them out of their nuclear weapons program. He needs to wake up to what's going on. But as I say, I don't see any evidence of that yet.

GLENN: What do you ‑‑ let me play devil's advocate. He would say, you know, the reason why we're in the trouble that we're in is because, you know, we have tried to dictate the terms and we're trying to meddle in everybody's business and let's just stay out of it. I think that would be his case is that, you know, we have nowhere ‑‑ we have no way of winning in this game and if we stand against these people, then we're just going to have more anti‑American rhetoric over there. I don't know how you could have any more. They already call us the Great Satan. But you would have more anti‑American sentiment, we would destroy the chance that we have to sit down at the negotiating table, and we should stay out of these things.

BOLTON: Well, let's take that argument as face value. That presumes that if we could ever get to a negotiating table, we could succeed in what the state's objective for the negotiations is which is to get Iran out of the nuclear weapons business. I see zero prospect that Iran is going to be chitchatted out of its nuclear weapons program, whether it's Mousavi or Ahmadinejad or anybody associated with the current regime. But I think the argument also betrays a more fundamental misperception of what the U.S. role could and should be.

As you point out, even though Obama's saying I'm not going to meddle, the Iranian leadership is accusing us of meddling. So facts aren't going to make a lot of difference here, and I think that if we were in a position where our president was saying, you know, we may not be able to offer much concretely or frankly anything concretely to support the dissidents, we want you to know that we are with you in spirit. And I think we've had testimony since the end of the Cold War from dissidents all over the former communist world that the fact that outsiders were with them gave them strength as they sat in prison cells and were being repressed across the board, that they didn't lose hope, that they knew outside people were with them in spirit and it gave them the strength to carry on under the most adverse conditions. You are seeing adverse conditions in Iran right now and our president's saying, well, you know, I still want to negotiate with the people who are doing the oppression.

GLENN: Let me see if you'll answer this one. Who is Barack Obama when it comes to the Middle East and these nasty regimes? I can't help but think, ambassador, that ‑‑ I mean, I have a lot of Jewish friends and a lot of them voted for Barack Obama and I look at them now and say, have you woken up yet? This guy is not a friend of Israel and he seems to be at least even playing footsy with some of the biggest enemies of Israel which happen to be the biggest enemies of America as well. Who is this guy on his Middle East policy? Do you know yet? Is he just a guy who is misguided or maybe, you know, give him the benefit of the doubt; maybe he's right, just going to take a totally different approach and try to be everybody's friend. Is he just misguided or is there something else?

BOLTON: No, I don't think so at all. I think he is no friend of Israel's. I think he sees that part of the world in terms of real moral equivalency. You know, you have the Israelis and they were victims of the Holocaust. So they have that on their side. Then you have the Palestinians. They are victims of the Israelis. So, you know, we're all kind of in this together. I think Israel's in for a tough year ahead as Obama applies pressure to them, and I think that a large part of his policy there and with respect to Iran really reflects his own naive view of his ability to change things simply because of who he is. It is truly a form of narcissism. I think it's less ideological than it is egotistical. I hope that introduction to brute reality will change the Obama attitude. He's a bright man, there's no doubt about that, and maybe a little education in the real world will have an effect. But I think he honestly believes that just by showing up, he can make a difference. I think that is laughable, but the level of confidence he displays in his own rhetorical and personal persuasion abilities are just unaccountable. Well, it's all on the table now in Iran. We'll see if he learns a lesson.

GLENN: Ambassador, thanks. Appreciate it.

BOLTON: Thank you.

GLENN: You bet, bye‑bye. Ambassador John Bolton.

In February 2020, Glenn Beck and his research team uncovered an alleged multi-billion dollar money laundering scheme which lead to a missing $1.8 billion in U.S. aid sent to Ukraine during the Obama administration, all of which pointed to Igor Kolomoisky, the corrupt Ukrainian billionaire at the center of it all.

If you missed Glenn's February special, "Ukraine: The Final Piece," you can find it here.

This week, the FBI raided the offices of U.S. companies owned by Kolomoisky in Cleveland and Miami. Additionally, the Department of Justice accused the Ukrainian oligarch of stealing billions of dollars from PrivatBank and then laundering the money through a network of companies all over the world. Kolomoisky and partner, Hennadiy Boholyubov, owned PrivatBank until December 2016, when Ukraine nationalized the bank because billions of dollars had gone missing.

Kolomoisky has ties to the Ukrainian gas firm Burisma, former Burisma board member Hunter Biden, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whose phone call with President Donald Trump was central to the Democrats' now-failed impeachment attempt.

On the radio program Friday, Glenn spoke with chief researcher Jason Buttrill about these latest developments.

"Yeah, $1.8 billion of [taxpayer] money that just vanished has now been found, or at least part of it, in Miami and Cleveland," Glenn said.

"I can't believe it's taken this long," Jason responded. "You said in February that [Kolomoisky] was the key to finding out where the money went. And we're talking about $1.8 billion dollars — $1.8 billion! That could finance a small war."

"That money went to PrivatBank — that's Kolomoisky's bank," he continued. "It was later nationalized after they found out all this money was mysteriously going missing. But it went through a bank in Cypress then, poof, it was laundered all over the world. [...] We also showed, in one of the previous shows, that there were wire transfers going from Burisma, which Kolomoisky is the managing principal of, to Hunter Biden."

Glenn and Jason also talked about recent reports from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleging ties between American revolutionaries, such as Antifa, and Marxist terrorists in Syria, which BlazeTV exposed back in June. Find out more here.

Watch the video below for more details:



Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The Federal Reserve is now doing two things it has promised never to do: purchasing our national debt, which has never been higher, and printing money, which leads to deflation. As a result, your money in the bank has already lost 10 percent of its value in recent weeks.

On the radio program, Glenn Beck explained how, thanks to the fed's poor decision making, our deficits have another dangerous effect: The United States' credit score has been downgraded, putting our country at risk of becoming an untrustworthy borrower. He also advises Americans to have at least a week's worth of cash at home, because a banking crisis could happen soon.

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Black Lives Matter protesters sent a shocking, threatening letter to businesses and non-profits in Louisville, Kentucky. The letter made a series of demands related to racial reparations, and threatened consequences if the demands weren't met, the Daily Wire reported.

On the radio program Tuesday, Glenn Beck detailed the letter's list of demands and threats, and pointed out that these tactics are strikingly similar to those we've seen during some of history's darkest chapters.

The letter, which was sent to businesses in the East Market District in downtown Louisville, listed demands such as ensuring that at least 23% of staff are black, providing race and inclusion training for all employees, displaying a written statement professing support for the BLM movement, buying at least 23% of inventory from black retailers, and submitting to external audit.

"Repercussions for non-compliance" to these demands will result in sit-ins and protests being staged outside the business, social media smear campaigns, boycotts, negative media attention, and "invasive reclamation," the letter threatened.

"So, I'm making quite a charge here, but I think it absolutely fits," Glenn said on the show. "Carl Kaufman, the representation that was used by Hitler and his machine, he convinced the youth that they were the answer, they would finally take control, and they would bring equality. [Kaufman said] the Jews controlled everything, and because of the Jews, the Germans really didn't have any freedom. Because of the Jews, they couldn't do anything. They were held down by the Jews. He said, 'We're going to have to boycott those stores. And if those stores don't comply, we will keep our storm troopers outside of the doors.' And they did. They intimidated anyone who walked into those stores. They berated anyone who walked into those stores. They beat anyone who walked into those stores."

"I told you once, that if America goes dark, we'll become the darkest nation ever in the history of the world," Glenn continued. "Guys, we're allowing our nation to go dark. And we're doing it because of fear. Everybody knows this is wrong, but who is going to stand up against it?"

Watch the video below to hear more from Glenn:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Shortly after appearing on "The Glenn Beck Radio Program" last Thursday, Los Angeles-based emergency medicine specialist Dr. Simone Gold got a call saying she was fired for speaking out about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in a now-banned viral video.

Dr. Gold returned to the radio program Monday to detail exactly what happened, the reason the hospitals gave for her firing, and how they threatened to fire her colleagues as well if she "didn't go quietly."

"Most emergency physicians work at more than one [hospital], as I do, and I've actually been fired from both," she told Glenn. "They told me that I appeared in an embarrassing video, and therefore, I would no longer be welcome to work there ... then they said, if I didn't go quietly and I made a fuss, they would have all the doctors in the group, you know, they'd have to go and they'll get a whole new doctor group."

Dr. Gold said she does not regret speaking out about hydroxychloroquine during the controversial "White Coat Summit" news conference held in Washington, D.C., last week. A video of the news conference quickly went viral on social media before being removed by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and others for allegedly making false claims related to COVID-19.

"Bring it on," she said. "I want to continue to live in America. I want my children to continue to live in America. I don't want them to grow up in a place like China. When you get to a point where, not only can I not speak as a scientist, as a doctor, for what I know to be absolutely true, but you then want to cancel me and my colleagues, this is not okay. I would much rather fight than not fight ... and I want everybody to know that there are literally millions and millions of Americans who are on our side. Millions. I believe it's the majority."

Glenn then asked Dr. Gold to weigh in on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's new guidelines encouraging schools to reopen in the fall and the left's relentless drive to keep them closed.

"There's no actual scientific debate whatsoever if schools should open. None. There's no scientific debate. There's no serious person who thinks schools shouldn't open. Now, [through] some governors and policy makers, there's pressure being brought to bear on school districts, but there's no actual scientific debate. So it's going to come down to parents pressuring their local school districts to act in a responsible fashion."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.