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.

For the first time in the history of "The Glenn Beck Program," former President Donald Trump joined Glenn to give his take on America's direction under President Joe Biden compared to his own administration. He explained why Biden's horrific Afghanistan withdrawal was "not even a little bit" like his plan, and why he thinks it was "the most embarrassing event in the history of our country."

Plus, the former president gave his opinion on China's potential takeover of Bagram Air Base, the Pakistani Prime Minister, and Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Glenn asked President Trump how similar the Biden administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan was to his administration's plan.

"Not even a little bit," Trump answered. "We had a great plan, but it was a very tenuous plan. It was based on many conditions. For instance, you can't kill American soldiers. ... You have to understand, I did want to get out. But I wanted to get out with dignity, and I wanted to take our equipment out. And I didn't want soldiers killed. ... What [Biden] did was just indefensible. He took the military out first and he left all the people. And then we became beggars to get the people out. I had a plan to get them out very quickly. But first, the Americans would go out."

Trump told Glenn that his plan included maintaining Bagram Air Base and explained why he would not have left "a single nail" behind in Afghanistan for the Taliban to seize.

"We were going to keep Bagram open," he explained. "We were never going to close that because, frankly, Bagram is more about China than it is about Afghanistan. It was practically on the other border of China. And now we've lost that. And you know who is taking it over? China is taking it over. We spend $10 billion to build that base. It's got the longest, most powerful runways in the world. And China has now got its representatives there and it looks like they'll take it over. Glenn, it's not believable what's happened. You know, they have Apache helicopters. These are really expensive weapons, and they have 28 of them. And they're brand-new. The latest model."

Glenn mentioned recent reports that Gen. Milley, America's top military officer, made "secret phone calls" to his counterpart in China while President Trump was in office.

"I learned early on that he was a dope," Trump said of Gen. Milley. "He made a statement to me — and I guarantee that's what happened to Biden — because I said, 'We're getting out of Afghanistan. We have to do it.' And I said, 'I want every nail. I want every screw. I want every bolt. I want every plane. I want every tank. I want it all out, down to the nails, screws, bolts ... I want every single thing. And he said, 'Sir, it's cheaper to leave it than it is to bring it.'

"The airplane might have cost $40 million, $50 million ... millions and millions of dollars. So, you think it's cheaper to leave it than to have 200 pilots fly over and fly all the equipment out? ... I said, you've got to be nuts. I mean, give me a tank of gas and a pilot and I just picked up a $40 million-dollar airplane. It was amazing. So, I learned early that this guy is a dope. But what he did, is he hurt our country ... and he shouldn't have been allowed to do it. And bad things should happen to him."

Watch the video clip below to catch more of the conversation or find the full interview on BlazeTV:


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.

In a shocking but underreported conversation ahead of the G7 Speakers' meeting in London last week, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted that the administration knows China is committing "genocide" against the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region, but thinks working with the regime on climate change is more important.

On the radio program, an outraged Glenn Beck dissected Pelosi's speech and broke down how — along with the Biden administration's abandonment of Americans in Afghanistan, and the Democrat decision to follow measures of medical "equity" — the far left is revealing how little they really care about human life.

Glenn played a video clip of Pelosi making the following statement:

We've always felt connected to China, but with their military aggression in the South China Sea, with their continuation of genocide with the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province there, with their violation of the cultural, linguistic, religious priority of Tibet, with their suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and other parts of China, as well – they're just getting worse in terms of suppression, and freedom of speech. So, human rights, security, economically [sic].

Having said all of that ... we have to work together on climate. Climate is an overriding issue and China is the leading emitter in the world, the U.S. too and developed world too, but we must work together.

"We have Nancy Pelosi admitting the United States of America knows that they're not only committing [genocide], they're continuing to commit it. Which means, we've known for a while," Glenn noted. "And what does she say? She goes on to say, yes, they're committing genocide against the Uyghurs, but having said that, I'm quoting, 'the overriding issue,' is working together on climate change.

"Would we have worked with Hitler on climate change? Would we have worked with Hitler on developing the bomb? Would we have worked with Hitler on developing the Autobahn? Would we have worked with Hitler on his socialized medicine? Would we have worked with Hitler on any of his national, socialist ideas?" he asked.

"The answer is no. No. When you're committing genocide, no! She said 'we have to work together on climate,' because climate is the 'overriding issue.' The overriding issue? There is no way to describe this mindset. That, yes, they are killing an entire group of people because of their ethnicity or religion. They are systematically rounding them up, using them for slave labor, and killing them, using their organs and selling them on the open market. They are nothing more than cattle. For us to recognize it and do nothing about it is bad enough. But to say, 'we recognize it, but we have bigger things to talk to them about,' is a horror show."

Glenn went on to urge Americans to "stand up together in love, peace, and harmony," or risk watching our nation become the worst plague on human life yet.

Watch the video clip 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.

The fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008 marked the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history and economic collapse was felt throughout the world. But now China's own version of Lehman Brothers, Evergrande, is teetering closer and closer to that edge, too. On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck gave the latest update and predicted how it will affect Asian markets and what it could mean for America's economy.

Glenn explained why he believes a major collapse that is happening now in China will have a cascading effect into a "controlled collapse," a managed decline that will dramatically change America's economy and the way we all live.

"You will not recognize your lifestyle. Hear me," Glenn warned. "And that's not a right-left thing. That's a right-wrong thing. We're on the wrong track. I'm telling you now, there's new information and you are not going to recognize the American lifestyle. ... It could happen tomorrow. It could happen in five years from now, but it will happen. We are headed for a very different country. One where you don't have the rights that you have. And you certainly don't have the economic privileges that Americans are used to."

"The same thing that happened in 2008 is now happening in China," Glenn continued. "This time, it's going to take everything down. When it collapses, it will take everything down."

Watch the video below to hear Glenn break down the 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.

Justin Haskins, editorial director of the Heartland Institute, joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to expose a shocking conversation between two Great Reset proponents — Klaus Schwab, chairman of the World Economic Forum, and Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank (Europe's equivalent to the Fed).

The way Schwab and Lagarde discuss the role central banks should play in establishing societal norms, determining your way of life, and defending against potential crisis is proof that the Great Reset is upon us, Justin explained. And the scariest part is that they're not even trying to hide it. The entire, unbelievable conversation has been published on the WEF website, which you can read here.

Glenn read an excerpt from the conversation:

Christine Lagarde: At the ECB, we have now wrapped up and concluded our strategy review, which was the first one in 17 years. And I was blessed to have an entire Governing Council unanimously agree that the fight against climate change should be one of the considerations that we take when we determine monetary policy. So at least the European Central Bank is of the view that climate change is an important component in order to decide on monetary policy. ...

Can we arrive at that trade-off between fighting climate change, preserving biodiversity and yet securing enough growth to respond to legitimate demands of the population? And my first answer, Klaus, to be firm, is that to have a way of life, we need life. And in the medium term, we do have major threats on the horizon that could cause the death of hundreds of thousands of people. So we have to think life, first. We have to think way of life, second. ...

So we have to think life, first. We have to think way of life, second. How can we come together to make sure that we secure the first priority, which is life, and also protect the way of life that people have? And make sure that the cost of it is not so high for some people, that they just cannot tolerate it. I think that the trade-off that we reach will probably require some redistribution, because it is clear that the most exposed people, the less privileged people are those that are going to need some help.

"Do you understand, America, what that means?" Glenn exclaimed. "You have elites, that you never elected, that are having these meetings ... deciding what is a legitimate need for you. And telling you that your needs are going to go away in your lifetime. You may not see a time where you get wants again. Just your needs are going to be addressed. Am I reading this wrong?"

"This is absolutely what is being said here," Justin agreed. "She's very clear that we need to make sure that way of life is second to life. We have to save all these people, hundreds of thousands of people are going to die from this supposedly existential threat of climate change. And their wants, and their desires, and their quality of living, all of that has to come second."

"This is a central bank saying this. This is not an elected official, who is accountable directly to the people. This is a central bank saying, we're going to print money. We're going to use monetary policy, to impose these ideas, to rework society in order to accomplish our goals," Justin added, addressing Lagarde's call for "some redistribution."

Will Great Reset elites — not elected by the U.S. — soon be dictating to the rest of the world? Watch the video clip below to hear Glenn and Justin break it down:

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.