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.

RELATED: It’s not a riot, it’s an invasion

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.

Trump’s strike wasn’t an escalation — it was an exit



I was 4 years old when I watched President George W. Bush announce the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I was 24 when I reported on Joe Biden’s abysmal withdrawal from Afghanistan — a calamitous end to a 20-year war that had long passed its expiration date. So when reports began circulating last week about President Trump’s potential intervention in Iran, I sighed and thought, “Here we go again.” I imagined myself covering the withdrawal from this conflict near my retirement, decades from now.

But I’ve changed my mind.

Instead of plunging America into another endless conflict, Trump may have done the opposite: broken the cycle.

This is not Iraq. And if handled strategically, this may actually mark the end of the Middle East’s “forever wars.”

A reckoning long overdue

Iran has long been the destabilizing force in the region, a role that is the latest installment of the Middle East’s millennia-long conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslim political powers. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the ayatollahs’ regime has acted as the mother ship for Shia militias across the Sunni-majority Middle East — exporting revolution and arming sectarian militias with a reach far beyond its borders. From Yemen to Lebanon, Syria to Gaza, Iran’s fingerprints are everywhere.

Take the Houthis in Yemen. Once a marginal insurgent group, they’ve grown into a regional menace thanks entirely to Iranian funding, training, and weaponry. Their ongoing civil war against Yemen’s Sunni-majority government has displaced over 4 million people and created what the U.N. once called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Since late 2023, the Houthis have targeted commercial ships in the Red Sea, turning the Suez Canal — a trade route that handles 12% of global commerce — into a war zone. More than 100 attacks on shipping vessels since November have forced companies like Maersk to reroute, costing the global economy billions in total losses.

Then there’s Hezbollah, one of Iran’s most powerful and dangerous proxies. Formed in the 1980s in response to Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah wields more power in Lebanon than the government itself. The group effectively took control of the country in 2020, and with an arsenal of more than 150,000 rockets, it poses a constant threat to Israel’s northern border.

RELATED: DOD reveals stunning new details following Trump's attack on Iran

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

In Syria, Iran propped up the brutal Assad regime — a Shia-Alawite minority ruling over a Sunni majority — with militias, weapons, and intelligence. Iran’s efforts helped Assad stay in power through 13 years of civil war that has killed more than 500,000 people and displaced over 12 million.

Even Hamas, a Sunni terrorist group, receives Iranian support — not because of shared theology, but because of shared enemies. Iran funnels cash and weapons to Hamas under the guise of humanitarian aid, often routed through NGOs and U.N. agencies. The October 7 massacre of Israeli civilians was the culmination of Iran’s decades-long investment in Hamas’ terror infrastructure.

These are not isolated insurgencies. They are coordinated arms of the same regime — a regime that has finally grown vulnerable.

Iran is unraveling

Prior to the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend, Israel, with quiet support from regional players, had already begun dismantling Tehran’s web of influence.

In the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, Israel has severely degraded Hamas’ capabilities in Gaza. Hezbollah has largely retreated from southern Lebanon. Syrian opposition forces — backed by Sunni-majority Turkey and Israel — overthrew the Assad regime. Even the Houthis, while still active, are increasingly cut off from Iranian resupply and face growing international pushback.

Trump’s strategy is not a repeat of Bush’s “shock and awe.” It’s a two-pronged offensive — diplomatic and deterrent — that recognizes the new regional order.

The first prong is diplomacy. Trump has steadily strengthened ties with Iran’s Sunni rivals, particularly Saudi Arabia. While critics scoffed at Trump’s investment in the Abraham Accords and Gulf partnerships, those alliances now provide a bulwark against Iranian aggression. Trump’s recent meetings with Arab leaders, coupled with trillions of dollars in investment and tech cooperation, have strengthened America’s foothold in the region — and weakened Tehran’s.

In Syria, Trump’s engagement with the country’s transitional government — under close watch by human rights groups — signals a shift away from Iranian and Russian influence. If Syria falls out of Iran’s orbit, it will be the regime’s most significant strategic loss in a decade.

Then came the second prong: deterrence. After five fruitless rounds of nuclear negotiations, Iran had to choose: Disarm or wait for Israel to strike. If the latter, then perhaps its allies would rally to arms while the regime could maintain its honor.

The mullahs miscalculated. With weakened proxies, overthrown regional allies, and a preoccupied Russia, Iran resorted to threats over disarmament — warranting U.S. intervention.

The strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure weren’t an opening salvo in a new war; they were a final warning. As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board noted, “Mr. Trump gave Iran every chance to resolve this peacefully. ... Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wanted a bomb more than peace."

Iran has begun to retaliate, launching strikes against U.S. bases in Iraq and Qatar on Monday. Maybe the retaliations will expand deeper into its Sunni neighborhood. Unlike previous decades, however, Iran no longer enjoys a regional support network strong enough to wage a multifront war. Russia, bogged down in Ukraine, has no capacity to assist. China, facing economic turmoil, is unlikely to risk its global partnerships. And the Arab world — long terrorized by Iran’s militias — is unlikely to intervene on its behalf.

An end to the ‘forever war’

Instead of plunging America into another endless conflict, Trump may have done the opposite and broken the cycle. By incapacitating Iran’s proxies, isolating the regime diplomatically, and demonstrating military resolve, he’s created a narrow but real path toward a more stable Middle East.

We’re not entering a forever war. We may finally be exiting one. Trump has proven to be the least interventionist president in recent decades, and by standing firm against Iran, he has proven that his anti-interventionism actually means something — it has teeth, and it’s not afraid to bite.

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.

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

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.

America needs prudent power, not globalist delusions



In the first major shake-up of Trump’s second term, Michael Waltz has been removed as national security adviser. The White House gave no explanation, but sources say Waltz drew fire for adding Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of the Atlantic, to a Signal chat with other national security officials about a recent U.S. strike on Houthi targets in Yemen.

But Waltz’s ouster likely runs deeper. It reflects a growing internal struggle over the direction of national security policy — a familiar pattern in American politics. From Hamilton’s Federalists to Jefferson’s Old Republicans, the fight over foreign policy priorities has shaped administrations since the founding.

Good strategy requires focus and discipline. The United States must prioritize its goals, not squander its power on open-ended crusades.

In a recent American Enterprise Institute essay, Hal Brands identified five competing foreign policy factions jockeying for influence under Trump. The two most influential camps are the “global hawks” and the “come home, America” bloc.

The Global Hawks — often dismissed as neocons — include Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. They insist on maintaining U.S. primacy to preserve global security and stability. This faction champions aggressive containment of adversaries like Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea. It also defends long-standing U.S. alliances, though now under pressure to renegotiate the terms.

The other faction, often called the “disengagers,” frames U.S. strategy through the lens of “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their primary goal is to avoid further entanglements in the Middle East by scaling back U.S. military involvement. They also oppose military aid to Ukraine, citing the risk of escalation with Russia. Vice President JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard stand out as leading figures in this camp.

Brands identifies three additional factions: the “Asia firsters,” the “economic nationalists,” and the “MAGA hardliners.” The most consequential alliance may be the one forming between the “come home, America” bloc and the “MAGA hardliners.” That coalition threatens to upend decades of Republican foreign policy — to the country’s detriment.

Force without strategy

Since the Vietnam War, the GOP has generally stood for national security: strong defense, reliable alliances, and a forward-leaning military posture. President Trump largely embraced that tradition during his first term. His national security strategy took a clear stance, particularly on South Asia, replacing President Obama’s unfocused approach to Afghanistan with a more coherent plan.

Yet, as H.R. McMaster notes in his memoir “At War with Ourselves,” Trump often strayed from those principles. While many of his instincts were sound, he frequently abandoned them when challenged — or simply deferred to whoever had his ear last.

Some observers see Waltz’s ouster as a sign that the “come home, America” faction is gaining influence within the White House. That remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Abandoning the traditional Republican defense posture would be a mistake.

The core issue isn’t military force itself — it’s the use of force without a coherent strategy rooted in defending U.S. interests. Too many in Washington treat national security as a tool for serving some imagined “international community.” That’s how the Obama-Biden team, and even George W. Bush, stumbled: They lacked prudence.

Prudence, as Aristotle defined it, is the political virtue essential to statesmanship. It’s the ability to match means to ends — to pursue what’s right with what works. In foreign policy, that means setting clear objectives and taking deliberate action to apply power, influence, and, when needed, force.

Return to what works

Since the 1990s, U.S. foreign policy has often shown hubris rather than prudence. Clinton, Obama, and now Biden have placed their faith in global institutions, believing U.S. power exists to uphold abstract international norms. Their goal has been to build a “global good” — a corporatist globalism detached from national interest and patriotism.

These Democratic administrations have repeatedly failed to distinguish allies from adversaries. Nowhere was this clearer than in Obama’s tilt toward Iran, which came at the expense of both Israel and Sunni Arab states. Biden has doubled down with his disgraceful treatment of Israel, undermining one of our closest allies while appeasing their enemies.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush pursued his own misguided vision — an effort to remake the Middle East in America’s liberal image through force. That project collapsed under the weight of religious conflict and tribalism in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while Washington obsessed over exporting democracy, China quietly rose — unfazed, unchecked, and happy to let us believe it would someday play by our rules.

The best way to secure America’s liberty, safety, and prosperity is to return to a strategy that resembles the one that won the Cold War — one that brought the Soviet Union to collapse and elevated the United States to unmatched global power.

Ronald Reagan summed it up in three words: peace through strength.

I call it prudent American realism. This approach blends principle with power. It recognizes that the internal nature of regimes matters. Thucydides understood this over 2,000 years ago. In “The Peloponnesian War,” he noted that both Athens and Sparta sought to promote regimes that mirrored their own values — democracies for Athens, oligarchies for Sparta.

The lesson? A nation is safer and more stable when it is surrounded by allies that share its principles and interests.

Two sides of the same coin

Prudence also demands restraint. While regime type matters, trying to spread democracy everywhere is a fool’s errand — one the Bush administration disastrously pursued after 9/11.

Resources are limited. Good strategy requires focus and discipline. The United States must prioritize its goals, not squander its power on open-ended crusades abroad.

Reagan’s foreign policy understood a timeless truth: Diplomacy and force go hand in hand. Too often, American policymakers — steeped in the fantasies of liberal internationalism — act as if diplomacy alone can achieve strategic goals. But as Frederick the Great put it, “Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.”

A sound U.S. strategy treats diplomacy and force as two sides of the same coin.

President Trump should follow Reagan’s lead. That means maintaining a forward defense posture with the support of reliable allies, projecting strength through presence, and defending freedom of navigation around the globe.

Strategically, the goal must be clear: Preserve the U.S. maritime alliance that defends the “rimlands” of Eurasia — a term coined by Nicholas Spykman. This system exists to contain any aspiring hegemon, whether it’s Russia or China.

This approach has served the nation well before. Trump should carry its lessons forward.

50 Years After Vietnam, Our Troops Remain Demoralized By Defeat

We would do well to consider how our choices in Vietnam affected our military and society in ways still felt today.

CIA’s secret grip on USAID is finally exposed — what happens next?



The Hill reported last week that Secretary of State Marco Rubio would cancel 83% of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s programs — a total of 5,200 contracts — “essentially capping a dramatic fall for the foreign aid organization under the Trump administration.” Rubio also expressly thanked the Department of Government Efficiency and “his staff who ‘worked very long hours’ to achieve the reform for USAID.”

As with the Watergate scandal that ended the Nixon administration, uncovering corruption often requires following the money. To borrow a phrase frequently used by Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein, “This is much worse than Watergate.”

Cutting, trimming, and restructuring the CIA is off to a good start, but it’s far from complete.

In my recent book, “Twilight of the Shadow Government: How Transparency Will Kill the Deep State,” coauthored with Kevin Shipp, a former CIA officer turned whistleblower, we examine the agency’s malign influence on American politics. From manipulating financial interests to shaping media narratives, the CIA’s reach extends far beyond intelligence gathering. We explore historical programs like Operation Mockingbird, which paid journalists to plant stories, and more recent efforts such as the seemingly benign “Center for Global Engagement.”

USAID has long operated as a cutout for the CIA, providing cover for the agency to expand its influence abroad. Through USAID, the agency builds what it calls “capacity” in foreign countries, whether by establishing controlled media outlets or funding so-called charitable organizations. Cutting 83% of USAID’s budget systematically dismantles the agency’s ability to extend its reach into these nations.

Ultimately, we propose 12 steps to reform the CIA, beginning with a crucial first move: breaking through the agency’s unconstitutional shield of secrecy and taking control of its hidden budget.

CIA’s shadowy origins

When President Harry Truman created the CIA in 1947, he intended it to serve as an intelligence-gathering body — essentially a daily briefing service for the president. But the agency’s first director, Allen Dulles, had a much broader vision. During World War II, Dulles attempted to negotiate a separate peace with Nazi Germany, aiming to install SS chief Heinrich Himmler as Adolf Hitler’s successor. Fortunately, that plan never succeeded.

Dulles’ machinations continued, however. He brushed aside the concerns of presidents like Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, overthrowing countries under the pretense of stopping communist revolutions. Even Truman became concerned, famously publishing an op-ed in the Washington Postin December 1963 urging President Lyndon Johnson to remove the CIA’s ability to engage in covert operations.

What were once left-wing positions in the 1960s and 1970s now form the core philosophy of the Trump administration, attracting figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Elon Musk. The key to understanding today’s crisis isn’t just exposing corrupt individuals — whether Allen Dulles, John Brennan, or James Clapper — but dismantling the system that enables them to gain and wield power.

Reining in corruption

Musk plays a crucial role in this effort. Corruption and wrongdoing exist in all groups, but the real challenge is minimizing harm. The solution is transparency. Information must be brought into the open so the public can make informed decisions — whether to reject or accept those in power.

The daily news cycle provides various examples of the transparency promised by Trump and Musk, whether Musk inadvertently tries to sell a secret CIA facility in Northern Virginia or a purge of recently hired CIA officers.

Cutting, trimming, and restructuring the CIA is off to a good start, but it’s far from complete.

To solidify these gains over a rogue agency, Congress must establish effective oversight of the CIA for the first time. Lawmakers who have passed rigorous security investigations must be allowed to delve into the agency’s operations, and the CIA must stop overclassifying relevant information under the excuse of “state secrets.”

We need a strong intelligence service to provide reliable information to our president. But we also need an intelligence service that is subservient to the civilian government and does not, as President John Quincy Adams once warned, venture “abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”

We must stop the forever wars abroad and the assault on our personal freedoms at home. Transparency is the only answer.

Zelenskyy miscalculated — and Trump won’t budge



During last week’s Oval Office confrontation with President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy received a stark reality check — and Europe is now scrambling to preserve its influence over Ukraine’s future.

First, we must establish a crucial fact: Those who wish to continue the endless war want you to believe that Ukraine must join NATO to ensure its ongoing security in a ceasefire deal. The opposite is true. Russia lost, and it did so without NATO involvement. Russia failed to achieve its primary objective — taking full control of Ukraine. The notion that Russia is poised to invade Poland or other NATO countries is unfounded. Without NATO involvement, Moscow has already demonstrated its limitations.

Will Zelenskyy take the deal, or will he keep dragging his countrymen through a war they can’t win?

This is critical when examining the exchange at the White House between Trump and Zelenskyy. This was not a routine diplomatic meeting — it was an unvarnished display of power dynamics.

Contrary to prevailing narratives, Trump did not instigate the tension. The viral clips circulating on social media omit the preceding 20 minutes, during which Trump consistently offered Zelenskyy an off-ramp.

Trump repeatedly cautioned him, signaling that he should reconsider his stance. Yet Zelenskyy persisted, prompting Trump’s firm response: “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem!”

Zelenskyy had just been publicly put in his place. He came to Washington thinking he could dictate terms. He thought he could guilt America into another blank check. Trump made it clear: Those days are over. At that moment, Zelenskyy grasped reality. He was no longer dealing with an American leader willing to be pressured into indefinite financial and military commitments. He hastily returned to Europe seeking reinforcement.

Zelenskyy returns, tail between his legs

Within hours, European leaders — including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and other heads of state — gathered in London. Their objective was to craft an alternative peace framework that would circumvent Trump’s influence. Their true concern is not Russia’s next move but the prospect of an American president who prioritizes U.S. interests over European demands.

In response, the U.K. pledged an additional aid package to Ukraine worth over $4 billion, including a $2 billion loan and another $2 billion for air defense systems. Macron floated the idea of a “coalition of the willing,” which is a euphemism for “If America won’t send troops, maybe we will.”

This approach raises fundamental questions. Are European nations prepared to deploy their own troops? More importantly, are Americans willing to send their sons and daughters to fight in Ukraine? The answer, for many, is a resounding no.

Europe’s power play

The ongoing crisis is less about defending democracy and more about geopolitical maneuvering. European elites are striving to maintain their strategic leverage, and Trump’s economic-based approach threatens to upend their plans.

Trump’s proposal to Ukraine is straightforward: Accept economic investment in rare-earth minerals, or receive no further assistance.It prioritizes economic cooperation over endless war. Ukraine holds vast mineral resources essential to modern technology, and American investors are prepared to help rebuild the nation. The plan represents a mutually beneficial alternative to prolonged warfare. However, Zelenskyy initially rejected it. After reconsidering, he returned to the United States, only to attempt a renegotiation in front of the media. Trump, unwilling to entertain such posturing, dismissed him outright.

This response sent shock waves through European leadership. If Trump’s strategy prevails, the war will conclude, military aid will cease, and Ukraine will transition to an economic recovery model. Such a resolution would strip Europe of its ability to dictate terms while simultaneously disrupting China’s control over global supply chains — an outcome Beijing strongly opposes.

The bigger picture

Connecting these dots reveals a broader reality: European leaders are not advocating for peace — they are maneuvering to retain influence. Their fear is not that Ukraine will fall to Russia but rather that Trump will broker a settlement that excludes them from the decision-making process.

Zelenskyy’s tantrum in the Oval Office was not merely a diplomatic miscalculation — it was the reaction of a leader recognizing that U.S. policy is shifting away from blank-check commitments. The crucial question now is whether Ukraine will seize the opportunity to rebuild through economic engagement or persist in a conflict that serves the interests of European power brokers more than its own people. Will he take the deal, or will he keep dragging his countrymen through a war they can’t win?

“America First” isn’t about abandoning allies but about ensuring we’re not being played. Last week, Trump made it clear: The game is over.

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

Mitch McConnell Is The Personification Of America In Decline

McConnell has spent his career selling America's domestic interests down the river in favor of funding foreign conflict.

Democrats’ 2024 Platform Combined The Worst Policies Of Both Parties From The Last 50 Years

In economic policy, social policy, foreign policy, and almost every other policy, Democrats made all the wrong choices.

Lying Media Rush To Smear Trump, Defend Warhawk Liz Cheney

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-01-at-11.38.48 AM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-01-at-11.38.48%5Cu202fAM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]Leftist media are twisting Trump's words to defend warhawk Liz Cheney from criticism for risking American lives.