Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee is leading the effort to make sure our taxpayer dollars are actually working for the American people.

Blackburn introduced the United Nations Voting Accountability Act on Thursday, which would prohibit taxpayer funding or aid from going toward "foreign countries that oppose the position of the United States in the United Nations," Blaze News has exclusively learned.

'It is unacceptable for US aid recipients to use international platforms to undermine America and protect adversaries like Iran.'

Notably, America spends tens of billions of dollars on foreign aid, contributing more to the United Nations than any other country. Blackburn and many other Americans are insisting that we should not owe money to countries that oppose our interests.

"No more should American taxpayers have to question the value of foreign assistance to countries that oppose our values and interests," Blackburn told Blaze News. "The United States must be a good steward of taxpayer dollars, ensuring every dollar that we send to foreign nations drives global stability and advances American interests."

Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

"The United Nations Voting Accountability Act would ensure that taxpayers are not forced to fund countries that undermine and vote against the U.S. in the United Nations," Blackburn added.

The bill does allow the secretary of state, in this case Marco Rubio, to exempt countries if they make a "fundamental change" to the leadership and policies to the extent that they no longer oppose the position of the United States in the U.N.

Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Following American airstrikes in Iran, adversarial countries like Russia, China, and Pakistan began circulating a resolution in the U.N. calling for a ceasefire, which "ignores Iran's support for terrorism" and "shields the Iranian regime from accountability," according to a press release from Blackburn's office obtained by Blaze News.

"While the resolution does not name the U.S. or Israel, its intent is obvious," the press release reads. "It is unacceptable for U.S. aid recipients to use international platforms to undermine America and protect adversaries like Iran."

This bill is also being sponsored in the House by Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, who introduced the legislation in February.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump’s punitive strike was precision, not permission for war

President Donald Trump made clear from the start: A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. But until just recently, few paid attention. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that while Iran had enriched a suspicious amount of uranium, it lacked a viable weapons program — let alone a bomb.

At the same time, left-wing agitators tried to spread immigration riots from Los Angeles to the rest of the country. Trump stayed focused on the domestic agenda his voters demanded. Israel’s sudden strike on Iran threatened to drag the United States into another foreign war — and derail Trump’s progress at home.

Trump knows his voters support a strong defense — but they’re tired of wasting American blood and treasure to fight foreign wars while their country falls apart at home.

Now that the U.S. has carried out a precision strike and set back Iran’s nuclear program, it’s time for Trump to return his full attention to rescuing America from Joe Biden’s open-border catastrophe.

Every presidency races against time, political capital, and public attention. Trump understood from the outset how easily foreign entanglements — especially in the Middle East — can swallow an administration.

That’s one reason the MAGA base remains loyal: Trump prioritizes domestic issues most presidents ignore while playing global policeman. Even while negotiating with Iran, Trump kept his focus on immigration. He battled leftist protesters and rogue judges at home, while keeping one eye on foreign threats.

But nearly two years after the terrorist attacks on October 7, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saw the window for war with Iran closing. Israel launched initial strikes on June 13 without American approval. Supporters insisted Israel could finish the job alone.

That was welcome news to Trump’s base, which feared any new conflict in the Middle East would derail his domestic policy blitz. But then the neoconservatives started moving the goalposts. Suddenly, it wasn’t just about airstrikes — it was about regime change.

Trump approved the use of U.S. bunker-buster bombs, believing them essential to destroy uranium enrichment sites buried deep in Iran’s mountains. U.S. forces entered and exited Iranian airspace without incident, delivering their payloads. Both sides issued conflicting reports about the strike’s effectiveness. But Trump clearly saw the operation as a means to reduce foreign policy pressure and pivot back to domestic priorities.

That pivot didn’t go as quickly as planned.

Israel and its allies quickly shifted from nuclear disarmament to full-blown regime change. Iran fired retaliatory missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar. While those strikes appeared calibrated to avoid casualties, tensions escalated.

Trump announced a ceasefire he had brokered between Iran and Israel. Both nations violated it within hours.

Netanyahu even defied Trump directly, ordering another strike while the president live-tweeted his demand for Israeli jets to turn back. They dropped their payloads anyway.

Frustrated, Trump told reporters Tuesday morning he was fed up with both countries. Israel, a close ally, had no interest in honoring its commitments. “Truth is, they have been fighting so long and so hard they don’t know what the f**k they’re doing. Do you understand that?” he said.

Blaze Media Illustration

American and Israeli interests were never fully aligned. Israel wants regime change. It lacks the capability to do it alone. Americans don’t want a nuclear Iran, either, but they have no appetite for another long war.

Trump’s airstrike may have succeeded, but that won’t satisfy Netanyahu. He clearly hopes to drag Trump into a broader conflict.

Israel’s refusal to respect a ceasefire negotiated by its primary benefactor makes the next step obvious: walk away.

On Tuesday, Trump issued a flurry of social media posts calling for mass deportations. He got what he wanted in Iran. Now, he’s ready to exit.

Would Israel continue its push for regime change without U.S. support? Maybe. It’s time to find out. The U.S. shouldn’t fight another unpopular Middle East war for an ally that won’t keep its word.

In his farewell address after his first term, Trump listed avoiding war as one of his proudest achievements. He knows his voters support a strong defense — but they’re tired of wasting American blood and treasure to fight foreign wars while their country falls apart at home.

Republicans always promise domestic wins. They spend their political capital overseas. Trump’s first hundred days this term have been different. He’s delivered rapid-fire domestic victories. That’s where the focus belongs.

Americans don’t want more war in the Middle East — especially one waged on behalf of an ally that does not respect their president. Biden’s open-border nightmare still haunts the nation. Crime, poverty, trafficking, and collapsing infrastructure all stem from the ongoing invasion of illegal immigrants.

Whatever nuclear threat existed in Iran has been neutralized.

Now Trump must do the job he was elected to do — the job he wants to do.

Deport illegal aliens, finish the wall, and put America first.

God, Israel, and America First: Inside the biblical battle for our future

With the battle between Israel and Iran moving from decades of proxy warring to an all-out crisis, world leaders have been waiting, watching, and nervously pondering what happens next.

And as the political implications cause deep concern, some of the theological issues implicit in the discussion have moved from percolating and bubbling under the surface to outright erupting.

There’s undoubtedly something special about Israel and the Hebrew people, through whom Jesus came.

The age-old biblical questions surrounding modern-day Israel and its relevance to prophecy sit at the core of these heated debates, as Christians ponder the modern Jewish state’s connection to the Old Testament, prophecy, and how those sentiments impact contemporary Christians’ views on how the U.S. and other nations should respond to the current crisis.

This theo-political skirmish burst onto the main stage after a verbal showdown between Tucker Carlson and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). The two now-infamously clashed, in part, over how Christians should respond to the Israel-Iran war.

The Cruz-Carlson spat intensified when Cruz proclaimed that he was taught in church that “those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed” and that support for modern Israel is a biblical command.

“Biblically, we are commanded to support Israel,” Cruz clarified after Carlson pushed back and questioned whether believers are truly commanded to “support the government of Israel.” When Cruz didn’t back down, Carlson demanded that the congressman “define Israel.”

The wick of an ever-smoldering theological debate was immediately lit on social media, with people on all sides pouring gasoline on the resulting flames.

Kayla Bartkowski / Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images

Ultimately, the main question centers on whether God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 is speaking about the Jewish people or the nation of Israel — and whether Christianity is the ultimate continuation of that pledge.

“The Lord had said to Abram, ‘Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing,’” reads Genesis 12:1-2. Verse 3 continues: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.’”

Cruz's critics match up this passage with the apostle Paul's words in Galatians 3:16, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ.”

Thus, some interpreters see Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, while others still see the state of Israel as biblically significant.

Truth in tension

But I’ve often been left wondering: Why can’t both be true?

As we assess these scriptures and consider whether modern-day Israel deserves unfettered support due to prophetic sentiments, we must confront two different realities. First, Israel is unlike any other nation in human history. Its formation, disappearance, and re-emergence raise important questions. It's a special nation composed of people through whom God has chosen to accomplish His will and offer salvation to all mankind.

Second, humans are prone to sin, and no nation run by mere mortals should be supported unconditionally without accountability. The entirety of the Bible is a testament not only to God’s truth and goodness but also to the pitfalls of man’s folly — even great men like David, Solomon, and Peter.

Ironically, it’s possible that both Cruz and Carlson are speaking kernels of truth or at least asking important questions we must ponder.

History meets prophecy

To first address Cruz, we must pull back and reflect on the stunning facts surrounding modern-day Israel’s existence.

When I was writing my book “Armageddon Code,” an exploration of various Christian beliefs about the end times, Israel’s contemporary existence truly struck me, particularly when I read the prophet Ezekiel’s words in Ezekiel 38, which was likely written during the Babylonian captivity of the Jewish people in the sixth century B.C.

The prophet foresaw a future time when the Jewish people, who had been driven out and scattered, would come back to their homeland. For nearly 1,900 years after the Second Temple’s destruction in the year 70, the Jewish people were dispersed and persecuted; the idea there would ever again be a Jewish state seemed folly to most.

But the Bible boldly predicted its re-emergence. Ezekiel 37 speaks of a valley of dry bones — imagery invoking skeletal remains coming back together, with tendons, skin, and flesh re-growing. This visualization is said to be Israel as it is restored to the land, with the Lord proclaiming in verse 12: “My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel.”

For nearly 20 centuries, these words seemed almost implausible — until the Holocaust and its aftermath left the Jewish people around the world reeling and seeking refuge. Remarkably, on May 14, 1948, the modern state of Israel was born.

To deny the prophetic significance is true folly, as no other people group in history has seen its land disappear from the map only to re-emerge nearly two millennia later — all while events lined up with what a prophet penned more than 2,000 years before.

There’s undoubtedly something special about Israel and the Hebrew people, through whom Jesus came. Any student of prophecy knows that the geographic area is key to still-to-be-fulfilled events, and the book of Revelation highlights its involvement in the end times.

Defending freedom — with wisdom

Beyond theological considerations, Israel is one of the main bastions of sanity in the Middle East, a place where freedom reigns. The Jewish state is a key American ally. That's why constant pledges to wipe it off the face of the earth by political foes like Iran should spark deep concern.

This doesn’t mean America must co-sign each and every Israeli action, nor does it require that Americans participate in Israel's conflicts. People and nations sin, and Israeli malfeasance — if and when it occurs, just like America’s — must be called to account.

Moreover, from a purely nationalistic position, there are times when “America First” means steering clear of international crises. Past military debacles and quagmires should be overwhelmingly pertinent testaments to our need for caution.

But there are also times when “America First” means intervening to protect American interests. Poor past decisions and wars don’t render every conflict unworthy; such a posture could leave the U.S. in a perilous place.

There’s no world in which a nuclear Iran is good for anyone, and burying our heads in the sand while pretending it's not happening is begging for terror.

So yes: Modern-day Israel holds prophetic significance and meaning. It’s a good, solid, and biblical posture to defend the Jewish people.

But even if you deny the biblical foundation of this argument, it’s morally expedient for our nation to help a friend ward off fiendish foes — enemies that also seek America’s destruction.

Still, such deterrence should always be done in a prayerful, political balance that ensures we truly weigh our engagement against truth, goodness, and American interests. As is the case in all things, discernment is key.

Exclusive: JD Vance tells BlazeTV's Steve Deace how Trump dodged the 'bad decision' his predecessors made in the Middle East

Friends and foes alike have expressed skepticism in recent days regarding President Donald Trump's approach to the Israeli-Iranian conflict. Trump appears to have once again earned their trust by neutralizing the Iranian nuclear program, striking a tenuous peace between Tehran and Jerusalem, and securing a U.S. exit out of what easily could have become another bloody Middle Eastern quagmire.

Vice President JD Vance provided BlazeTV host Steve Deace with critical insights on Tuesday both into the thinking that guided the president's successful actions in the Middle East and into how Trump avoided the damning misstep that tripped up his predecessors.

Vance, who deployed as a Marine to Iraq in 2005, indicated that he "always wondered kind of what went wrong" with past military interventions in the Middle East. This recent episode in the region buttressed his understanding that the answer is "that we allowed mission creep. In other words, we started with one mission, and then it turned into another mission, and it turned into another mission."

This phenomenon would account, in part, for why the U.S. military was formally involved in Afghanistan for two decades and in Iraq from 2003 until 2011 — protracted conflicts that claimed the lives of thousands of American service members and cost trillions of dollars.

Vance suggested that previous presidents lacked the clarity of focus and the restraint that Trump exercised in recent days.

Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images

"You didn't have the kind of presidential leadership to say, 'We are going to do what we came to do, and then once we've accomplished that successfully, we're going to get out,'" Vance told Deace. "And what did the president say we needed to do? We needed to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. We did that, of course, with incredibly competent troops and, really, an amazing military operation."

"The president just never let that mission creep settle in to the way the generals were thinking about it, the [way] diplomats were thinking about it," continued the vice president. "I really have to give the president all of the credit here, because I think, look — American history has told us that given the situation that [Trump] was in, every American president of pretty much my lifetime has made a bad decision in the Middle East. He was able to get in there, do what he said he was going to do, and then put the region back on the path to peace."

— (@)

Vance indicated further that Trump has changed the nature of the game, particularly where international expectations go, noting that foreign powers have come to expect the U.S. to "permanently entrench ourselves in that region of the world; to try to build democracies; to build separate nations, sometimes even separate cultures within a country where you didn't have any democratic culture."

The reason why the U.S. defied expectations this time around is because the man in charge "has made it very clear that the only thing the United States is going to be on the hook for is accomplishing our national objectives and our national mission."

'We don't want to have to serve as the policemen of the world.'

While emphasizing a willingness from the Trump administration to engage in diplomacy, Vance emphasized that America's interests remain the top priority — that "America first" is Trump's guiding principle in such matters.

Deace suggested that many in the MAGA coalition have been torn between a love for Israel and a desire to limit American engagements in the Middle East, particularly those that might draw American troops abroad.

Vance indicated that Trump "has been able to thread the needle very well" by simultaneously recognizing Israel as a "very important ally" with which there are multiple opportunities for cooperation, and the need, both for the U.S. and Jerusalem, for the U.S. to give up the role of "policemen of the Middle East" and leave that responsibility to the Israelis and the "rational" Gulf Arab states.

"We want Israel and the Gulf Arab countries to police their own back yard," said Vance. "We don't want to have to serve as the policemen of the world."

— (@)

In addition to seeking further disentanglement from Middle Eastern affairs, the vice president suggested there is also room for criticism of the action taken on the part of friends in the region.

'I think so long as we have political leaders in America who are laser-focused on the United States, yes, we can be pro-Israel.'

Vance noted that while Israel "is a great friend of ours, and we are in agreement on the deep cultural value question," that "doesn't mean that on every question of foreign policy we're always going to be aligned."

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Vance cited as an example Trump's stern call Tuesday morning with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which the president made clear that the ceasefire needed to be respected.

"I think so long as we have political leaders in America who are laser-focused on the United States, yes, we can be pro-Israel. Yes, we can say that our Israeli friends have a lot of, you know — there are a lot of ways in which we can work together," Vance told Deace. "Allies often do work together, but sometimes allies have disagreement, and I think we just have to be honest about that."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The MAGA divide over Israel is a test of maturity

The recent clash between Tucker Carlson and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) over the Israel-Iran conflict isn’t just a Twitter skirmish. It’s a proxy battle highlighting a deeper divide within the MAGA movement. That divide cuts to the heart of competing worldviews, and I’ve spent much of this week on my show trying to make sense of it through a biblical lens.

This internal debate isn’t a problem. In fact, it’s a strength. You’ll see it across Blaze Media on a wide variety of questions. Glenn Beck champions critical thinking and challenging assumptions. We don’t all walk in lockstep — nor should we. On this issue alone, you’ll hear wildly different takes across the network. That diversity makes us better.

We live in a time that punishes discernment. Critical thinking doesn’t just get ignored — it gets attacked. And yet I’ve never seen so many people hungry for truth.

We’re also better off when we allow that debate to happen within ourselves.

When I first became a Christian, I devoured everything I could find about church history and theology. I loved Augustine. Then I read Calvin and agreed with him — even where he contradicted Augustine. Then I read Luther, who opposed both of them — and I agreed with him, too. What now?

That tension never goes away. Pick up a Tim Keller book, and the same thing happens. If he wrote it before 2005, it’s probably excellent. If he wrote it after, it probably isn’t. So is Keller good or bad? Right or wrong?

I care about truth more than just about anyone I know. But early in my journey, I learned a hard lesson — delivered, oddly enough, by one of my favorite childhood films “WarGames”: “The only winning move is not to play.”

So do I have to pick Tucker or Cruz? Do I have to vote someone off the island?

Nope. If someone’s right in the moment, I’m with them. If they’re wrong — even if they were right 10 times before — I’m not. It’s not personal. It’s principled. That’s the only way I’ve found to avoid losing my mind, becoming a tribalist, or slipping into flat-out idolatry.

We live in a time that punishes discernment. Critical thinking doesn’t just get ignored — it gets attacked. And yet, I’ve never seen so many people hungry for truth.

That hunger forces us to work with unlikely allies.

Take Naomi Wolf. For three decades, she belonged to a political world I deeply opposed. She worked for the Clintons and trafficked in feminist nonsense. But during COVID, when the lies were thickest, she told the truth. She fought the right fight, at the right time, on the right side. That mattered more than her résumé. That’s what discernment looks like. Personality cults don’t interest me.

KvitaJan via iStock/Getty Images

Same with Donald Trump. In 2015, his campaign tried everything to hire me. I almost said yes. But then I did everything I could to stop him from winning. Yet the morning after his victory, I said something on my show that might be the most important thing I’ve ever said on-air: “The country has spoken. NeverTrump is dead and never coming back.”

I wanted what was best for the country. And at that moment, that meant helping Trump succeed. How could I help?

You won’t think that way if you’re obsessed with defending your narrative at all costs — especially if that narrative floats untethered from the Word of God.

You won’t love your neighbor. You’ll straw-man your opponents. You’ll never consider the possibility you’re wrong.

Look around. Just days ago, Israel versus Iran wasn’t on our radar. Now, people have already retreated to their corners and locked in their positions — on a conflict that could reshape the lives of millions.

Maybe we should stop. Breathe. Listen.

Maybe, before we harden into another round of generational mistakes, we should consult God — and one another.

Let’s reason together. It’s not weakness. It’s wisdom. And we need more of it.

Why the right turned anti-war — and should stay that way

After the COVID lockdowns, the Western global leadership class had little credibility left. So it seemed insane when they immediately pivoted to a new crisis — but that’s exactly what they did.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered demands from elites in Europe and America for NATO-aligned nations to involve themselves in the conflict. Many Republicans were initially on board, with Fox News and CNN marching in lockstep behind intervention. But the Republican base quickly soured on the war once it became clear that U.S. involvement didn’t serve American interests.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

In a strange inversion, the right became anti-war while the left championed military escalation.

That reversal matters now, as some in the GOP look to drag the country into another long conflict. We should remember what Ukraine taught us.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded, many conservatives instinctively aligned with Ukraine. The Soviet Union had been an evil empire and a clear enemy of the United States. It was easy to paint Russia as an extension of that threat. President Biden assured Americans that there would be no boots on the ground and that economic sanctions would cripple Russia quickly.

But the war dragged on. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed to Ukraine while America entered a painful economic downturn. Conservatives began asking whether this was worth it.

Putin was no friend of the U.S., and conservatives had valid reasons to distrust him. But suddenly, anyone questioning the war effort was smeared as a Russian asset. Opposition to the war became an extension of the left’s deranged Russiagate conspiracy, which painted Donald Trump as a blackmailed Kremlin agent.

Some Republican politicians kept pushing the war. Fox News stayed hawkish. But much of the conservative commentariat broke ranks. They knew that the boys from Appalachia and Texas — exactly the kind of red-state Americans progressives despise — would again be asked to die for a war that served no clear national purpose.

From that disillusionment, conservatives drew hard-earned lessons.

They saw that U.S. leaders lie to sustain foreign conflicts. That politicians in both parties keep wars going because donors profit. That Fox News can become a mouthpiece for military escalation. That you can oppose a war without betraying your country. And that American troops and taxpayer dollars are not playthings for globalist fantasies.

“America First” began to mean something real: Peace through strength didn’t require constant intervention.

Unfortunately, many of those lessons evaporated after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

That attack was horrific. No serious person denies the brutality of Hamas or questions Israel’s right to defend itself. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has treated the attack as a green light to target longtime adversaries, including Iran. As a sovereign nation, Israel can pursue its own foreign policy. But it cannot dictate foreign policy for the United States.

In 2002, Netanyahu testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He said toppling both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes would bring peace and stability. He was wrong.

He wasn’t alone, of course. Many were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War. But Netanyahu’s track record is highly relevant now. While conservatives once fervently supported the Iraq invasion after 9/11, many — including Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza — have since apologized. They admit they got it wrong.

Blaze Media Illustration

Afghanistan, while flawed, had clearer justification. The Taliban had harbored Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the lies about weapons of mass destruction and failed nation-building in Iraq turned that war into a conservative regret.

In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran had not resumed efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Gabbard, like Trump allies Robert Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth, was chosen precisely for her skepticism of the intelligence bureaucracy. Trump remembers how his first term was sabotaged by insiders loyal to the status quo. This time, he selected appointees loyal to the voters.

Gabbard’s assessment contradicts Netanyahu, who claims Iran is months away from having a bomb. That’s a massive discrepancy. Either Iran hasn’t restarted its program, or it’s on the brink of building a nuke.

So which is it?

Did U.S. intelligence fail again? Did Gabbard lie to Congress and the public? Or did she simply say something the ruling class didn’t want to hear?

Trump, Gabbard, and Vice President JD Vance understand how Iraq went wrong. They know Americans deserve evidence before another war — especially one that risks dragging us into a region we’ve already failed to remake at great cost.

Yet the war hawks keep repeating the same lie: This time, it’ll be quick. The United States is too powerful, too advanced, too economically dominant. The enemy will fold by Christmas.

Biden said the same about Ukraine. And hundreds of billions later, we remain in a grinding proxy war with Russia.

Now, while still financing that war, Americans are told they must back a new war — this one initiated unilaterally by Israel. The U.S. faces domestic strife, crippling debt, and an ongoing open-border crisis. Involvement in yet another conflict makes no sense.

Israel may be right about Iran. Tehran may indeed have developed a nuclear program behind the world’s back. But if Israel wants to wage a war, it must do so on its own.

The Trump administration has made clear that it wasn’t involved in Israel’s pre-emptive strikes and didn’t approve them. If Israel starts a war, it should fight and win that war on its own. America should not be expected to absorb retaliation or commit troops to another Middle Eastern project.

These wars are never short, and they are always expensive.

Even if Iran’s regime collapses quickly, the aftermath would require a long, brutal occupation to prevent it from descending into chaos. Israel doesn’t have the capacity — let alone the political will — for that task. That burden would fall, again, to America.

So before conservatives fall for another round of WMD hysteria, they should recall what the last two wars taught them.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

But don’t sleepwalk into another forever war.

Iran is not the next Iraq War — unless we make the same mistake twice

Is Donald Trump a warmonger? It’s a simple question, and yet an increasingly popular accusation from corners of the political class and commentariat that once saw him as the clearest alternative to globalist foreign adventurism. But such an accusation also defies the record. Whatever else one might say about Trump, he has been — consistently and vocally — against needless foreign entanglements.

To suggest that he has suddenly pivoted toward militarism is to misunderstand either the man himself or the moment we are in. Trump is not easily swayed from his core convictions. Trade protectionism and anti-interventionism have always been part of his political DNA. On tariffs, he is unbending. And when it comes to war, he has long argued that America must stop serving as the world’s policeman.

Is Iran another Iraq, or is it more like Poland in 1980?

So when people today accuse Trump of abandoning his anti-interventionist principles, we must ask: What evidence do we have that he has changed? And if he has, does that mean he was misleading us all along — or is something else happening?

If you’ve lost your trust in him, fine. Fair enough. But then the question becomes: Who do you trust? Who else has stood on stage, risked his life, and remained — at least in conviction — largely unchanged?

I’m not arguing for blind trust. In fact, I strongly advise against it. Reagan had it right when he quoted a Russian proverb during nuclear disarmament talks with the Soviet Union: “Trust, but verify.” Trust must be earned daily — and verified constantly. But trust, or the absence of it, is central to what we’re facing.

Beyond pro- and antiwar

The West is being pulled in two directions: one toward chaos, the other toward renewal. Trust is essential to renewal. Chaos thrives when people lose confidence — in leaders, in systems, in one another.

We are in a moment when clarity is difficult but necessary. And clarity requires asking harder questions than whether someone is “for or against war.”

Too many Americans today fall into four broad categories when it comes to foreign conflict.

First are the trolls — those who aren’t arguing in good faith, but revel in provocation, division, and distrust. Their goal isn’t clarity. It’s chaos.

Second are those who, understandably, want to avoid war but won’t acknowledge the dangers posed by radical Islamist ideology. Out of fear or fatigue, they have chosen willful blindness. This has been a costly mistake in the past.

Third are those who, like me, do not want war but understand that certain ideologies — particularly those of Iran’s theocratic rulers — cannot be ignored or wished away. We study history. We remember 1979. We understand what the “Twelvers” believe.

Twelversare a sect of Shia Islam whose clerics believe the return of the 12th Imam, their messianic figure, can only be ushered in by global conflict and bloodshed. Iran is the only nation in the world to make Twelver Shia its official state religion. The 12th Imam is not a metaphor. It’s doctrine, and it matters.

Finally, there are the hawks. They cheer for conflict. They seek to project American power, often reflexively. And they carry the swagger of certainty, even as history offers them little vindication.

The last few decades have offered sobering lessons. Regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria — none produced flourishing democracies or stable allies. While America is capable of toppling regimes, we’re not so good at manufacturing civil societies. Real liberty requires real leadership on the ground. It requires heroes — people willing to suffer and die not for power, but for principle.

That’s what was missing in Kabul, Baghdad, and Tripoli. We never saw a Washington or a Jefferson emerge. Brave individuals assisted us, but no figures rose to power with whom nations could coalesce.

Is Iran 1980s Poland?

That is why I ask whether Iran is simply the next chapter in a tired and tragic book — or something altogether different.

Is Iran another Iraq? Or is it more like Poland in 1980? It’s not an easy question, but it’s one we must ask.

During the Cold War, we saw what it looked like when people yearned for freedom. In Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, dissidents risked everything for a chance to escape tyranny. There was a moral clarity. You could hear it in their music, see it in their marches, feel it in the energy that eventually tore down the Berlin Wall.

Is that spirit alive in Iran?

Alex Wong/Getty Images

We know that millions of Iranians have protested. We know many have disappeared for it. The Persian people are among the best educated in the region. They are culturally rich, historically sophisticated, and far more inclined toward Western ideals than the mullahs who rule them.

But we know Iran’s mullahs are not rational actors.

So again, we must ask: If the people of Iran are capable of throwing off their theocratic oppressors, should the United States support them? If so, how — and what would it cost us?

Ask tougher questions

I am not calling for war. I do not support U.S. military intervention in Iran. But I do support asking better questions. Is it in our national interest to act? Is there a moral imperative we cannot ignore? And do we trust the institutions advising us?

I no longer trust the intelligence agencies. I no longer trust the think tanks that sold us the Iraq War. I certainly don’t trust the foreign policy establishment in Washington that has consistently failed upward.

But I do trust the American people to engage these questions honestly — if they’re willing to think.

I believe we may be entering the first chapter of a final, spiritual conflict — what Scripture calls the last battle. It may take decades to unfold, but the ideological lines are being drawn.

And whether you are for Trump or against him, whether you see Iran as a threat or a distraction, whether you want peace or fear it’s no longer possible — ask the tougher questions.

Because what comes next won’t be determined by slogans. It will be determined by what we truly believe.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn'sFREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

America First goes wireless: Trump Organization makes major product launch announcement

The Trump Organization, which provides services in many sectors of the economy — including real estate development, entertainment, and financial services — is adding a new venture to its growing portfolio. The Trump Organization, run by President Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr., announced the launch of its very own mobile wireless company, Trump Mobile.

The launch of Trump Mobile comes on the 10-year anniversary of the launch of President Trump's first presidential campaign. They are promising "top-tier connectivity, unbeatable value, and all-American service for our nation's hardest-working people."

'We're building on the movement to put America first, and we will deliver the highest levels of quality and service.'

"Our company is based right here in the United States because we know it’s what our customers want and deserve," Donald Trump Jr. said in an announcement. "We're building on the movement to put America first, and we will deliver the highest levels of quality and service."

The flagship program, the 47 Plan, costs $47.45 per month, a commemorative number for Trump's service as the 45th and 47th president of the United States. It works with all three major carriers in the U.S., making it a reliable option coast to coast. On top of that, the plan offers unlimited talk, text, and data; telehealth services; and free international calling, among many other features.

Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The service has some additional perks in the spirit of President Trump's American First agenda. "We're especially proud to offer free long-distance calling to our military members and their families — because those serving overseas should always be able to stay connected to the people they love back home," Eric Trump said in his announcement.

Additionally, the announcement includes the launch of a phone to go along with the mobile network: the T1 Phone. The T1 Phone is a "sleek, gold smartphone" manufactured in the United States. It will be available starting in August.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump’s tariffs are working — now comes the ‘marshmallow test’

The Congressional Budget Office released a report Wednesday detailing the budgetary and economic impact of President Trump’s tariffs. The top-line result: Even the Democrat-controlled CBO concedes that tariffs will reduce the deficit over the next decade.

Trump has every reason to celebrate. Tariffs shrink the deficit in one of two ways. They either raise revenue directly — as tariffs are a form of tax — or they do so indirectly, by reshoring industry and expanding GDP.

History suggests both outcomes are likely. But if Trump stays the course and keeps tariffs high and stable, the United States could seize the opportunity of a generation: reindustrialize the economy, grow GDP, and restore prosperity for our grandkids.

The marshmallow test goes national

In the 1960s, Stanford psychologist Walter Mischel ran an experiment on self-control. Children were given a choice: Eat one marshmallow now or wait and receive two later. Those who delayed gratification generally fared better in life. Intelligence and future success correlated with restraint.

The implications extended beyond childhood. Researchers found similar behavior in animals, with more intelligent species — like crows — choosing delayed rewards.

Delayed gratification builds successful investors, entrepreneurs, and nations.

No one pretends tariffs deliver instant gratification. They don’t. They aren’t supposed to.

Tariffs function much the same way. They impose short-term pain in exchange for long-term gain. Like the marshmallow test, this moment asks whether Americans will accept some present discomfort to secure a far more prosperous future.

Fortunately, patience pays. Economic logic and historical evidence both show that tariffs expand the gross domestic product and create jobs over time.

What the trade deficit reveals

In 2024, America posted a net trade deficit of $918 billion. That figure represents more than a statistic. It reflects real, physical production now taking place elsewhere — mostly in China.

The math is simple: If Americans didn’t buy those goods from abroad, they would need to produce them at home.

Reshoring that production would raise GDP accordingly. When demand remains steady and supply shifts from overseas to domestic producers, GDP rises.

Demand drives supply. That’s basic economics.

This principle played out throughout American history. For over a century, high tariffs protected domestic industry. America’s economy grew faster than the global average. Consumption increased. Industrial output soared. Not until the 1970s, when the country embraced so-called “free trade” and abandoned the gold standard, did growth begin to stagnate.

Industrial production also benefits from increasing returns to scale. The more you produce, the cheaper each unit becomes. Part of the reason Chinese goods seem inexpensive lies in our own underproduction. As American firms ramp up supply, the cost gap narrows.

Financing habits support this trend. Americans fund trade deficits by selling assets or issuing debt. Those mechanisms would remain available in a closed trade system. True, consumers might get less “bang for their buck” in the short term, but the willingness to spend wouldn’t change.

Most Americans will continue to consume, no matter where production occurs. That behavior ensures demand will remain steady — providing the economic incentive for supply to shift back home.

Unused capacity, untapped opportunity

America’s industrial potential remains far from exhausted. Millions of citizens remain unemployed or underemployed. Hundreds of billions of dollars in productive capital sit idle.

The infrastructure exists. The labor pool exists. The only thing missing has been the incentive to build again. Or more accurately, the disincentive to rely on foreign labor.

The United States thrived for generations as a self-sufficient manufacturing power. It can do so again.

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

Production follows consumption. That truism holds in both individual and national economies. No one works because they love harvesting wheat or running a forge. People work because they want to eat, live, and flourish.

In a globalized economy, countries can consume without producing. But once that system breaks — or gets reshaped by political will — production must rise to meet domestic demand. It cannot work the other way around.

This logic exposes a hard truth: America’s trade deficit reflects lost potential. We haven’t stopped consuming. We’ve just stopped building.

Trump’s tariffs aim to reverse that trend. By shrinking the trade deficit, the policy raises GDP. With production comes employment. With employment comes prosperity.

The patience to win

No one pretends tariffs deliver instant gratification. They don’t. They aren’t supposed to.

Tariffs offer a national test of will. Do Americans want long-term sovereignty, security, and wealth badly enough to endure a temporary adjustment? Or will they flinch the moment cheap consumer goods rise in price?

This question lies at the heart of the national debate. And the outcome will shape whether America reclaims its manufacturing base — or continues hemorrhaging power to rival nations.

The evidence favors success. But only if we stay the course.

Conservatives and nationalists should recognize what’s at stake. Tariffs don’t just serve economic goals. They advance a moral imperative — to rebuild the country we inherited and preserve it for those who follow.

The marshmallow test may sound childish. But its lessons hold: The future belongs to those who can delay gratification today to build something greater tomorrow.

America stands at that threshold now. As I show in “Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream,” reindustrialization isn’t a fantasy. It’s within reach. But it requires courage, consistency, and sacrifice.

Trump’s tariffs have set the stage. The numbers now support the policy. The question remains: Will the American people pass the test?

Let’s hope so. Because this country doesn’t belong only to us. It belongs to our children, our grandchildren, and every generation still to come.

Exclusive: Republican senator introduces bill slashing funds to anti-American governments

Trump’s punitive strike was precision, not permission for war

God, Israel, and America First: Inside the biblical battle for our future

Truth in tension

History meets prophecy

Defending freedom — with wisdom

Exclusive: JD Vance tells BlazeTV's Steve Deace how Trump dodged the 'bad decision' his predecessors made in the Middle East

The MAGA divide over Israel is a test of maturity

Why the right turned anti-war — and should stay that way

Iran is not the next Iraq War — unless we make the same mistake twice

Beyond pro- and antiwar

Is Iran 1980s Poland?

Ask tougher questions

America First goes wireless: Trump Organization makes major product launch announcement

Trump’s tariffs are working — now comes the ‘marshmallow test’

The marshmallow test goes national

What the trade deficit reveals

Unused capacity, untapped opportunity

The patience to win

Trump triumphs: Paramount, CBS settle over Kamala Harris' '60 Minutes' interview

The real land-grab isn’t Mike Lee’s — it’s Biden’s ‘30 by 30’

CBS News Parent Paramount To Pay $16 Million To Settle Trump 60 Minutes Lawsuit

Alligator Alcatraz is a warning to illegal immigrants in the US: Leave now or end up here

All 45 Senate Dems Just Voted For A $4 Trillion Tax Increase

The political future of Elon Musk

FBI ‘Suppressed Intelligence’ On Chinese Meddling In 2020 To Cover For Christopher Wray: Documents

Truth in tension

History meets prophecy

Defending freedom — with wisdom

Beyond pro- and antiwar

Is Iran 1980s Poland?

Ask tougher questions

The marshmallow test goes national

What the trade deficit reveals

Unused capacity, untapped opportunity

The patience to win

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.