Former IDF spox TELLS ALL about the Iran strikes



Last night, in a pre-emptive military operation dubbed Operation Rising Lion, Israeli defense forces struck Iran's nuclear and military sites, including a key uranium enrichment facility, killing senior military commanders and nuclear scientists.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Iran was dangerously close to developing a nuclear weapon, stating, “If not stopped, Iran could develop a nuclear weapon in a very short time — it could be a year, or even just months. This is a clear and present danger to Israel's survival.”

The idea of a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian regime is a terrifying notion. In the wake of Israel’s strike, many are wondering: Just how close was Iran to developing a nuclear bomb?

To get insight, Glenn Beck invited former IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus to “The Glenn Beck Program.”

“Iran has been dashing for the bomb for a long period of time,” says Conricus.

Citing a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, he adds, “Iran is not only enriching uranium to weapons-grade and has enough fissile material for at least 10 bombs, but that Iran is also in noncompliance when it comes to their obligations to allow international supervision of their sites.”

The IAEA report, along with other currently classified intelligence, was the “tipping point” that set Operation Rising Lion in motion.

“Iran has an open goal to annihilate the state of Israel. ... We know that they mean business, and we also know that if we allow them to develop the tools to do so, they might be tempted to use them, and that is what Israel has today started to unravel in terms of those Iranian capabilities,” Conricus told Glenn.

Glenn brings up a recent Axios article claiming that two Israeli officials said President Trump and Netanyahu deceived Iran about the Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities. The article suggests Trump publicly opposed the strike but privately supported it to mislead Iran, ensuring key targets remained in place.

“The president [said], 'You have 60 days to negotiate, and you don't want to see what happens on day 61.' I don't think that's deceptive to make plans to go in on day 61,” says Glenn.

Conricus believes it “is deception” but in a “good way,” in that it allowed Israel to catch their enemy “unaware” and “unprepared.” President Trump, he says, has “been very straightforward telling the Iranians time and time again this is the best deal that you're going to get.”

It was made perfectly clear to Iran that it “should relinquish all attempts to enrich material ... [and] allow full comprehensive inspection of all of [its] sites, nuclear as well as weapons development,” and yet the regime “didn't do it,” he explains.

“We are today on day 61 of the presidential ultimatum, and this is what happens.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the clip above.

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.

Mark Levin reacts to Charlie Kirk’s EPIC defense of Israel



Mark Levin first heard the name Charlie Kirk back when Kirk’s conservative nonprofit organization, Turning Point USA, was a student movement focused on promoting free markets and limited government on college campuses.

Even though he doesn’t agree with Kirk on every issue, he still regards him as “a very courageous gentleman.”

One issue they absolutely agree on, however, is America’s duty to support the nation of Israel.

Charlie “has always been a big supporter of Israel. … His heart is in the right place, and his brain is in the right place too,” says Levin.

In one of his recent Socratic-style public debates, Kirk shut down a pro-Palestine activist with so much acuity, Levin was blown away.

“What religion was Jesus? What did he believe?” Kirk asked his opponent.

“Well, obviously he was a Jew,” his challenger retorted.

“Where was Jesus born?” Kirk asked.

“Why does that matter?”

“Born in Bethlehem, and he was raised in Nazareth, and he walked on the water in Capernaum. What country are those places in right now?” Kirk then inquired.

His opponent, sensing defeat, could do no more than repeat, “What does it matter?”

“It does matter. You know why? Because when I went to Israel, I came in contact with the living God that walked on water and rose Lazarus from the dead. When I went to Israel, I saw the Bible come to life,” Kirk fired back.

“When I went to Israel, I was able to cry where Jesus cried, where he was betrayed by Judas and arrested, where he rose from the dead and gives us eternal life,” he continued, pointing to scripture highlighting the importance of blessing and honoring the Jewish nation.

“There is a diabolical, satanic agenda every single day to try and delegitimize the scriptures, and I will defend the Holy Land — the place that let me see where my Lord and Savior lived — and I will not apologize for that,” Kirk concluded.

“I want to salute Charlie for that,” says Levin.

Kirk is right, he says. “When you go to Israel … you go to the burial site of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob … you see where the tribes of Israel came together and formed the Jewish faith in Shiloh.”

“The Palestinians say that’s our country,” but it's nothing more than “a propaganda campaign,” he says.

To hear more of Levin’s commentary and see the footage of Kirk’s epic defense of Israel, watch the clip above.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

It’s not a ‘power-grab’ — it’s a rescue mission for higher ed



Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the State Department had revoked more than 300 student visas. The move allows the Trump administration to deport noncitizens who participated in pro-Palestinian protests at universities across the country.

Rubio defended the decision when asked about concerns over free speech — specifically, whether protesting or writing about foreign policy issues could justify a visa revocation.

No serious nation should defend the rights of foreign nationals actively working to harm it under the banner of ‘free speech.’

“If you are in this country on a student visa and are a participant in those movements, we have a right to deny your visa,” he said. “We are not going to be importing activists into the United States. They’re here to study. They’re here to go to class. They’re not here to lead activist movements that are disruptive and undermine our universities. I think it’s lunacy to continue to allow that.”

Rubio is right.

Whether someone supports Israel, supports the Palestinian cause, or criticizes both, that debate is beside the point.

No one has a right to a U.S. visa — student or otherwise. If a visa-holder engages in speech or activism that violates the terms of the visa — such as promoting violence, disrupting public order, or engaging in unauthorized political activity — the government has the authority to revoke the visa and deport the individual.

A free people's suicide

The Trump administration has made this position clear, particularly in cases involving pro-Palestinian protesters who have expressed support for Hamas, which the United States designates as a foreign terrorist organization.

But the issue of foreign student activism extends beyond the Israel-Hamas conflict.

An analysis by the Capital Research Center found that many “pro-Palestinian” groups share ties with broader movements that oppose the United States and the West in general. These groups frequently advocate violence to achieve their goals, including the destruction of the U.S., which they label an imperialist “settler-colonial” state.

Revoking the visas of foreign students who disrupt public order or seek to undermine American society is both legal and necessary. But the issue goes beyond campus protests. With hundreds of thousands of student visa-holders from adversarial nations like China, the threat is not just ideological — it’s also a national security concern.

No serious nation should defend the rights of foreign nationals actively working to harm it under the banner of “free speech.”

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to a U.S. education. Attending an American university is a privilege, not a right.

Ideological takeover

Understanding the difference between rights and privileges is essential — especially considering the influence universities have on shaping American political discourse. While student visas are intended for academic study, today’s universities increasingly promote ideological activism over traditional education. And that shift is happening at the same time as the number of international students in the U.S. has grown to over 1 million annually.

At Columbia University, more than 55% of students are foreign nationals — an 18% increase between 2017 and 2022. NYU’s student body is 42% international, up 24% over the same period. This trend is just as pronounced at the graduate level. In 2023, international students made up 42% of Princeton University’s graduate program.

As foreign student enrollment rises alongside campus political activism, the Trump administration has the authority and obligation to respond decisively to the growing influence of ideological movements within universities.

In a series of aggressive actions, the administration has withheld hundreds of millions in federal funding from institutions like Columbia University for what it calls “inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” It has also launched investigations into other universities over allegations of race-based segregation and transgender athletic policies. Through executive order, the administration has taken steps to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education — a long-standing goal for many conservatives since the department’s establishment in 1979.

Whose ‘political will’?

Unsurprisingly, the left has responded with swift opposition, deploying both legal challenges and familiar media outrage.

Several academic groups have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration to stop the deportation of foreign students. Teachers’ unions have sued to block the administration’s move to revoke federal funding from Columbia University, while others have challenged its attempt to shutter the Education Department.

Mainstream media outlets have framed these actions as an “authoritarian power-grab,” accusing the administration of trying to “impose its political will on American universities, which foster curiosity and independent thought.”

Some critics have gone even further, likening Trump’s efforts to confront anti-American activism on college campuses to the Nazi-era program of Gleichschaltung — a system of totalitarian “social control.”

While American universities may be called many things, bastions of “independent thought” are not among them. Claims that Trump is seeking total “social control” are difficult to take seriously, given how heavily university faculty skew left.

A 2023 Harvard Crimson survey found that just 0.4% of Harvard faculty identified as “very conservative,” while 31.8% described themselves as “very liberal.” A broader study of 51 leading liberal arts colleges revealed a 10.4-1 ratio of Democrat to Republican faculty, underscoring a deep ideological imbalance.

This dominance of progressive ideology on campus doesn’t stay confined to the classroom. It flows into national politics, funding Democratic candidates and fueling an activist pipeline that often promotes anti-American narratives.

According to OpenSecrets, Democrats have received more than 70% of all political donations from the education sector in every election cycle since 2002. In 2018, donors from the education industry gave over $64.5 million to Democrats and just $7.8 million to Republicans.

Teachers' unions show an even sharper tilt. In the 2024 cycle, the National Education Association contributed 98.48% of its donations to Democrats and only 0.79% to Republicans. Employees of the U.S. Department of Education gave zero dollars to Republican candidates.

Rooting out radicals

Given the dominance of left-wing ideology on college campuses and the steady stream of campaign donations from the education sector to Democratic politicians, it’s no surprise that Democrats are fiercely defending what functionally operate as their institutions. Trump’s actions threaten not just campus activism but a political pipeline that helps sustain the left’s long-term dominance.

Far from representing an “authoritarian power-grab,” the Trump administration’s efforts mark one of the first serious attempts by the political right to challenge a system that has traded education for progressive indoctrination.

If the country hopes to reclaim its universities — a goal critical to the republic's long-term health — rooting out radical activism and defunding ideological strongholds must continue and accelerate. Republicans cannot afford to hand over the nation’s future to those who openly disdain it.

Trump admin revokes 300 student visas amid crackdown on Hamas supporters: Rubio



The Trump administration has already revoked at least 300 student visas amid its crackdown on pro-Hamas supporters, State Department Secretary Marco Rubio stated Thursday.

In a January executive order, President Donald Trump vowed that his administration would take steps to combat anti-Semitism, including revoking student visas and deporting Hamas sympathizers.

'We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to become a social activist that tears up our university campuses.'

"To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before," Trump stated.

Earlier this month, the State Department confirmed that it had pulled the first student visa of an individual accused of being involved in a pro-Hamas campus protest.

Since then, Rubio reported that the department has revoked at least 300 foreign students' visas.

During a Thursday press conference in Guyana, Rubio told reporters, "Maybe more. Might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas."

"At some point, I hope we run out because we've gotten rid of all of them. But we're looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up," he continued. "And by the way, we want to get rid of gang members too."

Rubio confirmed that the State Department had revoked the visa of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish national attending Tufts University.

A Reuters reporter asked Rubio to explain why Ozturk's visa was canceled, noting that she had written an opinion piece about the "Gaza war."

"We revoked it, and here's why," Rubio replied. "If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason why you're coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we're not going to give you a visa."

He called it "crazy" and "stupid" for any country to welcome individuals who seek to "start a riot" or "take over a library and harass people."

"We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to become a social activist that tears up our university campuses," Rubio added.

A State Department official previously told Axios, "We found literally zero visa revocations during the Biden administration," adding that it "suggests a blind eye attitude toward law enforcement."

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

Trump admin accuses Columbia University grad of fraudulent green card application, ties to Hamas-linked UN group



President Donald Trump’s administration accused Mahmoud Khalil, a Syrian-born activist leader who previously attended Columbia University, of hiding his former employment at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.

According to Sunday court filings, prosecutors alleged that Khalil withheld information on his green card application, including his previous role at the Hamas-tied UN agency.

'A red herring.'

Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Khalil earlier this month, in part over his involvement with the Columbia United Apartheid Divest, a group linked to disruptive and sometimes violent protests at Columbia University last year. The Trump administration has argued that Khalil is a foreign policy threat.

Khalil was detained as part of the administration’s pledge to revoke visas and deport foreign students who participate in pro-Hamas protests.

His lawyers have argued that he was targeted for his activism against Israel and that his detainment infringed on his First Amendment rights.

On Sunday, prosecutors stated, “Khalil’s First Amendment arguments falter on their own terms. Regardless of his allegations concerning political speech, Khalil withheld membership in certain organizations and failed to disclose continuing employment by the Syria Office in the British Embassy in Beirut when he submitted his adjustment of status application. It is black-letter law that misrepresentations in this context are not protected speech.”

The Trump administration claimed Khalil’s First Amendment defense was “a red herring.”

“There is an independent basis to justify removal sufficient to foreclose Khalil’s constitutional claim here,” prosecutors added.

Baher Azmy, one of Khalil’s attorneys, told CNN, “We’re not at all surprised because it’s a recognition that the initial charges are unsustainable.”

“So they’re going with a theory that they must think is more legally defensible. But I just think this doesn’t cure the obvious taint of retaliation,” Azmy added.

Azmy stated that they would “deal with” the claim Khalil failed to disclose certain information “when the time comes in the immigration court.”

“For now, for purposes of the federal case and his right to bond and ultimately his release from detention, we don’t think it undermines our case at all.”

Azmy plans to file a response by Tuesday afternoon.

Ramzi Kassem, another of Khalil’s attorneys, told the New York Times that the administration’s argument was “patently weak and pretextual.”

“That the government scrambled to add them at the 11th hour only highlights how its motivation from the start was to retaliate against Mr. Khalil for his protected speech in support of Palestinian rights and lives,” Kassem claimed.

Khalil’s lawyers claimed that he had not promoted Hamas.

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

A green card is not a ‘get-out-of-deportation-free’ card



“Free Mahmoud Khalil” is quickly becoming the left’s new George Floyd rallying cry, as radicals once again champion criminals, thugs, and terrorist sympathizers. But their argument has a major flaw — Khalil is already free. He is free to return to Syria anytime and continue promoting Hamas. The government is not detaining him indefinitely or seeking to incarcerate him. President Trump is simply enforcing long-standing immigration laws that have been ignored for too long.

Last week, Trump announced that ICE had targeted Khalil, the Syrian national responsible for the pro-Hamas encampment at Columbia University, for deportation. “We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here. We expect every one of America’s colleges and universities to comply. Thank you!”

We don’t need to let 'intifada globalists' in our club.

Last month, I outlined how more than 120 years of uninterrupted case law confirms that deportation is not a punishment but a consequence of enforcing national sovereignty. The United States has the right to set conditions for admitting noncitizens. While the government cannot fine or imprison individuals — citizens or noncitizens — for expressing pro-terrorist or pro-communist views, it can require foreign nationals to leave. Freedom of speech protects against incarceration, but it does not grant immunity from deportation.

Recognizing the strength of this legal distinction, Khalil’s supporters are now arguing that there is a difference between those on immigrant visas and those on nonimmigrant student visas. Khalil arrived in the United States from Syria in December 2022 and became a legal permanent resident in 2024. A federal district judge in New York, disregarding the Supreme Court’s long-standing precedent on plenary power, temporarily halted his removal.

In reality, the Constitution does not distinguish between different visa types for noncitizens. Legal permanent residents do not have greater constitutional protection against removal than foreign students. Due process rights for noncitizens depend on what Congress establishes through legislation. While green-card holders typically have more legal avenues to remain in the country, Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly grants the president authority to remove any noncitizen who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.”

This is precisely what Khalil did. He led the now-banned Columbia University Apartheid Divest group, which occupied the campus and called for a global intifada in America. Like it or not, his actions fit the legal definition of endorsing terrorist activity and persuading others to do the same. Again, we cannot write such a law to detain indefinitely citizens or even aliens based upon such expressions, but we can ask foreigners to leave.

One is free to debate the political merits of these statutes, but the constitutional moorings are solid. As the Supreme Court ruled in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):

That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.

Holding a green card increases the likelihood of remaining in the United States and eventually becoming a citizen, but it does not provide a constitutional guarantee. As Justice James Iredell, one of the Supreme Court’s original members, wrote:

Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever [risk] he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.

The risk of removal is not limited to committing a specific crime that must be proven through due process. It also applies to behavior deemed harmful to national interests, which falls under the discretion of the political branches to enforce.

Emer de Vattel, the Swiss scholar on international law frequently cited by America’s founders and in early American case law, made it clear that removal does not require criminal activity to be justified. He wrote:

Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, or doing it a manifest injury. ... Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates.

A judge has no authority to interfere with immigration officers' decisions. Aliens are not entitled to due process through courts to determine whether they meet the statutory definition of an excluded alien. As the Supreme Court ruled in Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950):

The decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the [p]resident, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer. ... The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.

Some may object to the sight of individuals being handcuffed for expressing anti-American views, but such actions are only taken to enforce removal. As the court stated in Turner v. Williams, “Detention or temporary confinement as part of the means necessary to give effect to the exclusion or expulsion was held valid.”

Unlike in criminal cases, federal law allows an alien facing removal who wishes to avoid detention to leave the country voluntarily.

From a political standpoint, a foreigner who holds a green card while calling for jihad provides even more reason for swift removal. If he naturalizes, the country will be left with a self-hating American citizen. As Gouverneur Morris stated at the Constitutional Convention, “Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”

We don’t need to let “intifada globalists” in our club.

America welcomes guests — but not those who want to destroy it



America is the most generous country on Earth. We open our doors, offer opportunities, and welcome those who seek a better life. But make no mistake — this country is a home, not a doormat. If you, as a guest, start trashing the place, don’t be surprised when we show you the door.

Mahmoud Khalil is exactly that — a guest. He’s a green-card holder who led violent, anti-Semitic protests at Columbia University. Labeling what he did as mere “protests” softens the outright hate against the Jewish people and Western civilization that he espoused during his weeks-long standoff.

Green-card holders are not entitled to the same protections as citizens.

The left is accusing President Trump’s decision to revoke Khalil’s green-card status as a violation of his rights while dismissing the critical fact that Khalil is not a citizen — and as such, actions have consequences.

Residents are not citizens

A green card is not a birthright; it is a privilege. It’s a golden ticket invitation to live and work in the United States. But as in Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, that ticket comes with terms and conditions. If you break the rules, you’re out. It’s not a passport. It’s not citizenship. It’s more like a revocable lease.

Imagine you’re handed the keys to a grand estate. The owners invite you to sit at their table, pour you a glass of wine, and say, “Stay as long as you like. Just honor the house rules.” And yet, rather than showing gratitude, you start smashing windows, tearing down walls, and whispering to others, “This place is awful. It must be destroyed.”

How long before the owner snatches those keys from your hand? And who in their right mind would object? If you threatened to burn down the guest wing, you would be thrown out, and the owner would be right to do so.

Deportations are lawful

Today, we are watching green-card holders — guests in our home — sow chaos, spew hatred, and threaten the foundations of the very country that took them in.

The left is wringing its hands, insisting that these guests have a “right” to do all of those things — which is simply not true. Green-card holders are legal permanent residents, not citizens. In fact, back in 1893, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could deport noncitizens at will. National sovereignty means we have the power to determine who comes into our house. If someone isn’t a respectful guest, the Supreme Court ruled we can kick them out.

Let’s be clear: Deporting Mahmoud Khalil is not a violation of his rights. He doesn’t have the same protections as U.S. citizens. We have opened our doors, allowing millions to chase their dreams in America. But that welcome comes with an expectation: Don’t destroy what you were invited into. You don’t come into my house and start swinging a hammer at the foundation. You don’t set fire to the roof. And you surely don’t get to claim victimhood when you’re shown the exit.

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.

FACT CHECK: Facebook Image Does Not Show Authentic BBC Headline About Hamas, Bibas Family

An image shared on Facebook purports to show a BBC headline claiming, “Hamas just wanted to protect the Bibas family.” Verdict: False The purported headline is neither referenced on the BBC’s website nor on its verified social media accounts. In addition, a BBC spokesperson denied the claim in an email to Reuters. Fact Check: Israel […]