As I Slept In Jerusalem’s Bomb Shelters, I Realized Trump’s Attack On Iran Was Putting America First

We were awakened by sirens at 3:00 a.m. This was a warning from the Israeli government to get ready for retaliation. And Iran did retaliate.

Trump’s best move for Iran: Regime change, bombs, or nothing?



The prospect of U.S. military involvement in the escalating Israel-Iran conflict has created a bitter rift among the MAGA coalition. Interventionists are pushing for U.S. support of Israel’s strikes, arguing it’s in America’s best interest to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, while isolationists oppose involvement, contending that America ought to focus on her long list of domestic issues.

While others in the conservative movement are making "bold declarations" of what to do in Iran, Glenn Beck is “not recommending anything” and is instead “asking questions.”

“A nuclear armed Iran is really bad, but I want Israel to take care of it. I don't want to be involved,” he says.

Someone else who is taking a similar nuanced approach is Sean Davis, CEO and co-founder of the Federalist. On a recent episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn and Sean discussed the various paths Trump could take — none of which, they admit, are great.

  

“We don't want bad people” — especially “our enemies” — “to have weapons they could use to destroy us or our friends,” says Davis. “I think probably everyone agrees on that.” Unfortunately, we live in a world where having nuclear weapons is the only way regimes can prevent their overthrow. Davis points to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who voluntarily gave up his nuclear weapons program after the Iraq invasion, hoping to avoid trouble. However, the U.S., NATO, and allies, under leaders like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, then overthrew and killed him, setting a new precedent: If you want to stay in power, you need nuclear weapons.

With that event in mind, Davis says he “doesn’t have a good answer” for how to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran’s hands. Even if America or Israel bomb Iran’s Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, it would only temporarily get rid of the “mechanism for ... enriching uranium.” “What that doesn't get rid of is the incentive” to make nuclear weapons, says Davis, noting that “in four or five years,” we’ll likely be forced to “deal with that” again.

Some are suggesting a third option — regime change, which in theory would be democratic in nature and led by the Iranian people and their organized resistance to overthrow Iran’s current theocratic leadership.

Davis, however, “[doesn’t] think regime change is a great idea.” “We’ve seen how well that works; it turns into an unmitigated disaster,” he says, comparing the idea to opening “Pandora’s box of insanity.” For now, all he has is a question: “What is the best possible way to incentivize people we don't like and don't like us to not have [nuclear] weapons?”

Coaxing Iran to lay down its nuclear weapon aspirations with “economic incentives” is likely not going to solve the problem, either. Iran is “sitting on oil, which is probably the most precious and important natural resource on earth. I don't think [bribery] works,” says Davis.

“What we’re left with is probably the whack-a-mole that’s been going on for years,” he says, “and the nation that's probably best suited to deal with that” is the one “at risk,” which is Israel, given Iran doesn’t have “the ballistic missile capability" to pose a real threat to the U.S.

“So I think the least worst option is probably Israel doing what it does every five to 10 years and going and trying to degrade their ability to mechanically make this stuff, wait to see what happens, [and] do it again over and over and over,” he tells Glenn.

While Glenn is with Davis “100%” on this option, he brings up a good point: The United States is the only country with a “bunker buster” that could wipe out Iran’s Fordow plant, which is buried deep under a mountain. That bomb “has to be dropped from one of our planes,” though, which would automatically make us “part of the war.” He floats the idea of perhaps “selling” the bomb to Israel and making it be the one to drop it, but that would still involve the U.S. indirectly.

In either case, there’s also the reality that we don’t know how Iran will respond if either the U.S. or Israel bombs it. Iran might “take [it] on the chin” to avoid further conflict, or it might “unleash hell.”

“Whenever you go and punch someone in the face, you now have to deal with the consequences of how they're going to respond,” says Davis.

Glenn shares Davis’ sentiments on there being no truly good options. He recalls a Ronald Reagan social security saying that applies to “everything” these days: “There's going to come a time where we've made so many mistakes there won't be a good solution to anything; every choice will be a bad choice.”

“And I think we're here,” says Glenn.

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.

JD Vance pushes America First position on India-Pakistan conflict: 'None of our business'



The decades-long dispute between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region has resulted in numerous bloody skirmishes and three full-fledged wars — in 1965, 1971, and 1999. In the wake of a horrific terrorist attack in the southern part of Indian-administered Kashmir last month, fighting has resumed and threatens now to embroil the two nuclear powers in another major war.

When pressed on Thursday to comment about the Trump administration's concern "about the potential for nuclear war between India and Pakistan," Vice President JD Vance told Fox News' Martha MacCallum that while concerned and keen on de-escalation, the U.S. is "not going to get involved in the middle of war that's fundamentally none of our business and has nothing to do with America's ability to control it."

"Look, we're concerned about any time nuclear powers collide and have a major conflict," said Vance. "What we've said, what Secretary Rubio has said, and certainly [what] the president has said is we want this thing to de-escalate as quickly as possible."

Tensions once again came to a head between India and Pakistan on April 22 when terrorists massacred 26 people, mainly Indian tourists, near Pahalgam, a town in the southern part of Indian-administered Kashmir.

'It's a shame.'

Indian officials believe that the group claiming responsibility for the massacre, the Resistance Front, is actually a proxy for the Pakistan-based jihadist terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba, reported the New York Times.

President Donald Trump stated in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack, "The United States stands strong with India against Terrorism. We pray for the souls of those lost, and for the recovery of the injured."

While India did not publicly blame the Pakistani government massacre, New Delhi nevertheless responded with missile strikes on alleged terrorist training sites in Pakistan while also reportedly arresting thousands of people in Kashmir.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif claimed that India's May 6 (local time) strikes amounted to a "heinous act of aggression [that] will not go unpunished."

President Donald Trump said Tuesday in response to the news of India's military operation against Pakistan, "It's a shame," adding, "I just hope it ends very quickly."

'What we can do is try to encourage these folks to de-escalate a little bit.'

Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted later on May 6 that he was monitoring the situation closely and echoed Trump's hope that "this hopefully ends quickly."

In recent days, India and Pakistan have reportedly traded artillery fire and drone strikes. Sharif claimed Wednesday that the Pakistani military had shot down five Indian jets.

"We can't control these countries," Vance, who was in India at the time of the terrorist attacks, told MacCallum. "India has its gripes with Pakistan. Pakistan has responded to India. What we can do is try to encourage these folks to de-escalate a little bit."

"Our hope and our expectation is that this is not going to spiral into a broader regional war or, God forbid, a nuclear conflict," continued the vice president. "We're worried about these things, but I think the job of diplomacy — but also the job of cooler heads in India and Pakistan — is to make sure this doesn't become a nuclear war."

According to the Federation of American Scientists, Pakistan and India have 170 and 180 nuclear warheads, respectively.

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

Trump Is The Right Man To Walk Us Back From The Brink Of Nuclear War

America’s enemies know the dynamic changes on Jan. 20 when Donald Trump walks back into the Oval Office.

Putin signals opening for Trump to make good on major campaign promise about Ukraine



President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly suggested on the campaign trail that if elected, he would resolve the war between Russia and Ukraine. Critics, including so-called fact-checkers, suggested that it couldn't be done or that doing so would require unthinkable concessions on Kyiv's part.

Notwithstanding the nay-saying from the so-called experts, it appears that Trump might be able to make good on this major campaign promise after all. Putin, whose economy is apparently "overheating," told reporters Thursday that he was "ready to meet [Trump] if he wants it" and that he was open to making compromises at the negotiating table.

After meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump told reporters in September, "I think I haven't changed from the standpoint that we both want to see it end and a fair deal made. It's gonna be fair. I think it will happen at the right time. I think it is going to happen."

"This is a war that should have never happened. It should have never happened, and it wouldn't have happened. It's a shame," said Trump. "We'll get it solved. It's a very complicated puzzle, very complicated puzzle, but we'll get it solved, and people [will] get on with their lives. Too many people dead."

Reuters indicated in late November — around the time President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine's use of American-made long-range missile systems against targets in Russia — that Putin was keen to discuss a ceasefire in Ukraine with Trump, especially since he would be negotiating from a place of strength, having made significant advances in Ukraine at a pace unparalleled since the early days of his invasion.

'Too many lives are being so needlessly wasted.'

Five current and former Russian officials with "knowledge of Kremlin thinking" specifically told Reuters that Putin was open to freezing the conflict along the front lines. Three insiders speaking on the condition of anonymity suggested there was room for negotiation over what to do with the eastern regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, where occupying Russian forces are largely in control, and that Moscow would consider withdrawing from territorial footholds in the Kharkiv and Mykolaiv regions.

Following the toppling of President Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria by a U.S.-designated terrorist organization and Turkish-backed Islamic militants, Trump noted in a Dec. 8 Truth Social post,

Assad is gone. He has fled his country. His protector, Russia, Russia, Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, was not interested in protecting him any longer. There was no reason for Russia to be there in the first place. They lost all interest in Syria because of Ukraine, where close to 600,000 Russian soldiers lay wounded or dead, in a war that should never have started, and could go on forever. Russia and Iran are in a weakened state right now, one because of Ukraine and a bad economy, the other because of Israel and its fighting success. Likewise, Zelenskyy and Ukraine would like to make a deal and stop the madness. They have ridiculously lost 400,000 soldiers, and many more civilians. There should be an immediate ceasefire and negotiations should begin. Too many lives are being so needlessly wasted, too many families destroyed, and if it keeps going, it can turn into something much bigger, and far worse. I know Vladimir well. This is his time to act. China can help. The World is waiting!

"If a meeting takes place at some point with the newly elected president, Mr. Trump, I am sure we will have plenty to talk about," Putin said Thursday at his over four-hour long press briefing.

"Politics is the art of compromise. And we have always said that we are ready for both negotiations and compromises," said Putin. "It is just that the opposite side, in the literal and figurative sense of the word, refused to negotiate. And we are always ready for this. The result of these negotiations is always compromise."

Putin previously suggested in October that Russia was willing to make "reasonable compromises" but stressed "the outcome should be in favor of Russia."

"After all, we reached an agreement, essentially, in Istanbul at the end of 2022. And, I repeat for the 100th time, the Ukrainian side initialed this document, which means they generally agreed with it, and then for some reason they refused," Putin continued in his remarks Thursday. "It is clear why."

The New York Times reported in June that documents from the negotiating sessions held from February to April 2022 in Turkey show negotiators produced multiple drafts of a treaty that would have apparently seen Ukraine's security guaranteed while also satisfying a number of Putin's demands.

'Mr. Johnson, a man with a nice haircut, came and said that they need to fight to the last Ukrainian.'

Russia initially wanted Ukraine to recognize Crimea as part of Russia, but by April 15, both sides reportedly agreed to exclude Crimea from the treaty such that Ukraine would not formally cede the territory though Crimea would nevertheless remain under Russian occupation.

Negotiators also apparently agreed that Ukraine would declare itself permanently neutral, forgoing ever joining NATO but keeping open the possibility of membership in the European Union. They disagreed, however, over proposed limits on the firing range of Ukraine's missiles and on withdrawal of Ukrainian troops on their own territory. There was similarly pushback over Russia's demand for a removal of restrictions on the use of the Russian language in Ukraine.

While there appeared to be some agreement about numerous points in the drafts or at the very least the possibility for compromise, the Times indicated Russians effectively killed the talks with a toxic clause.

The Times indicated that in Istanbul, Ukrainian negotiators proposed a requirement that guarantor states, namely the U.S., Britain, France, China, and Russia, would have to defend Ukraine in the event of a subsequent armed attack. Moscow, however, allegedly pushed in a subsequent draft for all guarantor states to have a veto, meaning Russia could invade then block a military intervention on Ukraine's behalf.

A member of the Ukrainian negotiating team suggested that following this change, "We had no interest in continuing the talks."

Putin instead suggested in his remarks this week that former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was responsible for killing the talks.

"Mr. Johnson, a man with a nice haircut, came and said that they need to fight to the last Ukrainian. So they are fighting. Soon, these Ukrainians who want to fight will run out," said Putin. "In my opinion, soon there will be no one left who wants to fight. And we are ready [to negotiate] but the other side needs to be ready for both negotiations and compromises."

Zelenskyy appeared more interested in a different comment from Putin's press conference, namely the Russian president's suggestion that he was prepared to continue testing the Oreshnik hypersonic missile on Ukrainian targets, calling it an "interesting" experiment.

"People are dying, and he thinks it's 'interesting,'" wrote Zelenskyy. "Dumb***."

Zelenskyy also suggested that bringing Ukraine into NATO, "clear progress on Ukraine's EU membership," and more weapon deliveries would help make Russia recognize the need for peace.

Putin's remarks about compromises came a day after NATO chief Mark Rutte indicated that Ukraine's Western backers would continue furnishing Ukraine with weapons following a meeting with Zelenskyy in Brussels, reported Politico.

Rutte suggested that the objective is to ensure that Ukraine is in the "best possible position one day, when they decide so, to start the peace talks" with Moscow.

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

The drone mystery: What does the government really know?



The U.S. is seeing an unprecedented rise in unidentified drones flying at night, and no one seems to know what their purpose is or where they came from.

And the supposed lack of government knowledge is leading to some interesting theories.

“This guy’s had his hands on this nuke. Touched it physically,” Keith Malinak of “Pat Gray Unleashed” says, explaining a post he’s seen on X from a man who claims to know what’s happening.

“So what he’s afraid of is that the nuke is somewhere in the New York City metropolitan area, and these drones are actually searching for the nuclear signature for the radiation,” Pat Gray comments, adding, “So if that’s what it is, which I hope and pray it isn’t, but if this was the case, then what would the government say?”


“They can’t come out and say, ‘You know what? There’s a missing nuke, and we think it’s in the New York area, and somebody’s about ready to set it off,’” Gray continues. “That would cause such an unbelievable panic.”

While everyone wants to know what’s going on, Malinak is concerned that the attention might be making it worse.

“As this theory becomes more and more popular on social media, that that is what is happening, then you could see panic arise out of that, but you could also see, if there are terrorists, are bad guys who are planning something like this, maybe now that this is starting to get traction, this theory, you could be speeding up an attack,” he says.

Glenn Beck of “The Glenn Beck Program” is concerned as well.

“The time between the election and the inauguration is the most dangerous, because the elites want a global war,” Glenn tells Gray and Malinak.

“And they want to thwart Trump, come what may,” Gray agrees.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Exposed: how Washington engineered the Ukraine crisis — and pushed us to the brink of World War 3



Joe Biden is rushing to do as much damage as possible before leaving office.

Along with bailing out his son, he’s racing to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to Ukraine. Rather than de-escalating tensions or seeking a resolution to the conflict, Biden seems hell-bent on edging the world closer to the precipice of World War III. This is not hyperbole.

‘Trump must be brutally honest with the American and Ukrainian people, just as he had the courage to do in the case of Afghanistan.’

Scott Horton, the author of “Provoked,” delivers an unflinching and meticulously-researched critique of U.S. foreign policy, laying bare how Washington reignited Cold War tensions with Russia and set the stage for the current crisis in Ukraine.

In telling the story of how successive administrations pursued policies designed to antagonize Russia, dismiss its security concerns, and provoke the conflict that now rages, Horton — who was recently accused of being a Russian propagandist on "Piers Morgan Uncensored" — leaves no stone unturned.

His inescapable conclusion? Deliberate choices led to this dangerous impasse.

Let’s be clear: Ukraine cannot and will not defeat Russia — not now, not ever.

Say this aloud, however, and you’re instantly labeled a Putin sympathizer. But Horton is no Kremlin crony. He’s ruthlessly logical, a voice of reason cutting through the propaganda-fueled chaos.

If you care about facts over feelings, read "Provoked," his 1,000-page takedown of the mainstream narratives driving Europe — and the world — toward catastrophe. Packed with over 6,000 footnotes, Horton methodically exposes the geopolitical moves that have brought us to the edge of extinction.

A betrayal rooted in the Cold War's end

The seeds of the Ukraine crisis were sown in the early 1990s at the end of the Cold War. U.S. officials assured Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand eastward — a promise never formalized but understood as sacrosanct by key figures like Mikhail Gorbachev.

Horton points to former Secretary of State James Baker’s assurance to Gorbachev that NATO would move "not one inch eastward" beyond Germany. That was a brazen deception. By the mid-1990s, NATO was incorporating former Warsaw Pact nations, beginning with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.

Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s first post-Soviet president, cautioned Bill Clinton in 1994 that NATO’s expansion would undermine trust and fracture Europe once more.

"NATO was created in Cold War times," Yeltsin argued. "Today, it is trying to find its place in Europe, not without difficulty. It is important that this search not create new divisions, but promote European unity. We believe that the plans of expanding NATO are contrary to this logic. Why sow the seeds of distrust? After all, we are no longer adversaries; we are partners.”

His plea fell on deaf ears. Horton underscores the gravity of this oversight, quoting George Kennan, the architect of Cold War containment, who warned that NATO expansion would be “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

Horton tells Align that “the truth is that since the end of the last Cold War, successive administrations have pushed their so-called sphere of influence deep into Eastern Europe, expanding their military alliance, in violation of solemn promises and agreements, up to Russia's borders.”

He continues, outlining a pattern of provocations:

“They’ve overthrown governments friendly to Russia, including Ukraine’s — twice in the Bush and Obama years. They’ve installed anti-ballistic missile defense systems from suspicious dual-use-capable launchers, supported Kiev's war against the 'rebels’ of the east, and continued to threaten to integrate the nation into the NATO alliance, against all the best advice of leaders of the U.S. foreign policy establishment who knew better all along.”

“These are not Russian talking points,” Horton emphasizes, “any more than they are a justification for Putin’s 2022 invasion and subsequent war — not at all. But they are the truth, and enough to undermine the lie that the Russian president has simply decided 25 years into his presidency to reconquer Eastern Europe for no reason beyond his twisted sense of history and imperial Russian entitlement.”

Horton drives the point home: “He had always prioritized good relations with the West and allowed the status quo to hold in Crimea and the Donbas until Washington escalated the issue, time after time.”

Color revolutions and the road to Maidan

In his book, Horton lays bare the deep roots of Ukraine’s turmoil, tracing them back to the 2004 Orange Revolution — a moment Moscow saw not as a democratic awakening but as a Western power play.

To Russian leaders, this was no grassroots uprising. The West’s fingerprints were all over it, from financial backing of opposition groups to overt political support for Viktor Yushchenko, whose contested victory marked a shift away from Moscow’s influence. For Russia, the message was clear: The West wasn’t just knocking on its door — it was trying to kick it down.

A decade later, the 2014 Maidan Revolution turned simmering tensions into a full-blown geopolitical inferno.

Horton documents how protests against President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to prioritize ties with Moscow over a European Union deal spiraled into chaos, aided and abetted by U.S. intervention. Yanukovych’s refusal to bow to Western pressure made him a target, and soon enough, he was ousted from power with Washington cheering from the sidelines.

Then came the smoking gun: a leaked phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt.

During the call, they candidly discussed handpicking Ukraine’s next leaders — proof that this was nothing more than a coup disguised as a wholly organic, democratic uprising. For Moscow, this wasn’t just meddling; it was an act of war by other means. The coup shattered any pretense of diplomacy, prompting Russia to annex Crimea and back separatists in the Donbas.

Horton argues that the West’s actions didn’t just provoke Russia — they guaranteed a response. Crimea, home to Russia’s vital Black Sea fleet, was never going to fall into NATO’s orbit without a fight

A grim prognosis for Ukraine

The human cost of these provocations is staggering, and Horton offers a bleak forecast. “In tragedy and defeat,” he says, “Ukraine will lose at least the four southern and eastern provinces to Russia.”

He warns that if Ukraine doesn’t negotiate soon, critical regions like Kharkiv and Odesa could also fall. The latter, Ukraine’s last major port city on the Black Sea, is vital to the nation’s survival. He explains in our discussion: “It would take direct U.S. intervention to reverse the course of the war on the ground, and even Biden knew we could never go that far without risking direct war between Russia and NATO.”

Media complicity and misinformation

Horton doesn’t just take aim at policymakers; he reserves equal scorn for the media, accusing it of cheerleading the march to war. He tells me, “The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Daily Beast, MSNBC, and The National Review” are among the most shameless purveyors of pro-war propaganda.

By casting the Ukraine conflict as a righteous battle against an imperialist Russia, these outlets conveniently sidestep America’s role in stoking the flames. All of them, in his view, are guilty of being war-friendly propagandists.

He’s right. The narratives they push are as delusional as they are dangerous. Ukraine, they insist, can win, and anyone who refuses to drink the Kool Aid is considered an enemy of progress, peace, and patriotism. The lunatics aren’t just running the asylum — they’re dragging us to the brink of nuclear annihilation.

A path to peace?

Horton takes a clear-eyed view of the steps needed to end the war, urging U.S. leaders to confront an uncomfortable reality. He calls for brutal honesty with both the American and Ukrainian people, insisting they admit what’s painfully obvious: The war is unwinnable.

“The best choice is to seek peace immediately while they are only this far behind and not further,” he tells Align. A negotiated settlement, while difficult and painful, is the only viable path for Ukraine’s survival.

Horton sees a potential for resolution under a Trump administration, citing Trump’s past willingness to defy the foreign policy establishment.

He points to the president-elect’s handling of Afghanistan as an example. “Trump must be brutally honest with the American and Ukrainian people, just as he had the courage to do in the case of Afghanistan. The war is lost. We have to end it before our friends lose even more territory,” Horton explains.

In contrast, the Texas-based author argues that the Biden administration's approach stems from arrogance, emphasizing strategies that further fuel the flames of carnage.

Rather than seeking resolution, Washington has escalated the conflict, ignoring the devastating consequences. As Horton warns, this hubris could have catastrophic costs — not just for Ukraine, but for the entire world.

‘Nukes are up for sale now’: Inside Glenn Beck’s PRIVATE conversation with Donald Trump



Glenn Beck is a lucky man, and he just got even luckier.

Not only did he recently travel to Mar-a-Lago to attend a PragerU event, but he was given the chance to talk with President-elect Donald Trump while he was there.

“I ask him what the hell is going on with South Korea, North Korea, China, Syria, Ukraine, Russia,” Glenn says. “He is laser-focused on this. And again, he reiterated to me the nuclear proliferation that is coming is going to be our biggest problem.”

While Trump had Iran under control during his first presidency, Biden quickly ended that.

“He said, ‘We had Iran absolutely crippled.' He said, ‘I hope we can get them there quickly.’ He said, ‘But nukes are up for sale now,’” Glenn continues. “North Korea has them.' And he said, ‘I don’t have any evidence that they’ve sold them, but they are up for sale.’”


“I asked him about the next 40-some days. I said, ‘I’m very concerned that Biden or whoever is the president of the United States right now, the military-industrial complex, Barack Obama, I don’t know who it is, wants war,’” he explains.

Trump and Glenn also went into depth discussing North Korean fighters.

“He’s like, ‘Glenn, it’s a country of 5 million soldiers.’ He’s like, ‘It’s a religion over there. Their state is their religion. Their supreme leader, Kim Jong Un, is like their god.’”

“And he said, ‘There’s no respect for life, none.’ He said, ‘It’s unlike anything the modern world has seen in a long time,’” Glenn continues, adding, “They don’t even have tourniquets. He said, ‘If the guys are shot in the legs, they bleed to death and people are just walking over them.’ He said, ‘If you’re wounded, you die. There’s no medics coming for you.’”

“He said, ‘It is bloodshed like the world cannot imagine,’” Glenn adds.

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.

Yes, Ronald Reagan Won The Cold War

Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump exemplify the standard that there is no substitute for victory.

Biden Just Invited World War 3 By Greenlighting Long-Range Missiles Against Russia

'It would substantially change the very essence, the nature of the conflict,' Putin warned in September.