After the Department of Government Efficiency found rampant waste, fraud, and corruption in the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Trump administration fired nearly all of its 10,000 employees as part of a broader effort to dismantle the agency and transfer its functions to the State Department.
“Let me just remind you, USAID was a CIA front,” says Glenn Beck. “This is the group of people that started color revolutions all over the world, which is how to topple a nation.”
Now, a recent story has suggested that some of these former employees may be planning to use their color revolution tactics to undermine President Trump’s power and plot regime change.
“Some of the democracy-building experts President Donald Trump fired this year from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department are now reapplying the skills and knowledge they built up over decades to undermine Trump’s power,” Glenn’s co-host Stu Burguiere reads from a NOTUS article.
The piece goes on to quote a currently employed, anonymous federal official: “Take it from those of us who worked in authoritarian countries. We’ve become one. They were so quick to disband AID, the group that supposedly instigates color revolutions. But they’ve done a very foolish thing. You just released a bunch of well-trained individuals into your population. If you kept our offices going and had us play solitaire in the offices, it might have been safer to keep your regime.”
“What they're saying here is that they are plotting regime change in our own country,” Glenn translates.
And this isn’t just a broad idea. These usurpers have intricate plans that are already in motion.
Former USAID employees “are holding workshops on a tactic called non-cooperation. They're building a network of government workers willing to engage in even minor acts of rebellion in the office. They're planting the seeds of what they hope could become a nationwide general strike,” Stu continues reading from the article. “Some in the informal network of the Trump opponents are sharing an old CIA pamphlet with allies who still work in the government. It's called simple sabotage.”
“You have Democrats that have been so convinced that USAID is going to starve people to death because [Trump] cut it, and now the ‘aid’ workers are quote unquote planning revolution,” scoffs Glenn.
But he’s not surprised. The left has branded itself as the party of violent uprisings. Glenn revisits three recent news stories that prove this.
To hear them, watch the clip above.
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.
Multitudes of Syrian Christians gathered for mass Sunday evening inside the Greek Orthodox Church of the Prophet Elias in Damascus — and dozens of them never returned home.
Their prayers were interrupted by a jihadist who opened fire on the faithful, then detonated an explosive vest, killing at least 25 Christians and wounding 63 others. The explosion reportedly caused extensive damage to the structure of the church.
This terrorist attack — yet another reminder of the unrelenting persecution of Christians worldwide — was supposedly executed by a member of ISIS.
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa — the Islamic terrorist also known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who rose through the ranks of the Islamic State of Iraq before founding an Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra — condemned the attack and expressed condolences, reported the state-owned network Alikhbaria Syria.
Al-Sharaa called the attack a "heinous crime" that serves as a reminder of the importance of solidarity and unity of the regime and people in the face of security threats.
Christian persecution watchdogs have warned in recent months that the al-Sharaa regime cannot be trusted. After all, the regime is largely composed of and led by elements of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, an Al-Qaeda spinoff terrorist organization linked in its formative years to the late leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and whose current leader was until recently a specially designated global terrorist who fought against American forces in Iraq.
Jeff King of International Christian Concern, for instance, noted after the reported massacre of Syrian Christians by regime-aligned jihadists in March that the government is "Al-Qaeda and ISIS in a new guise."
Despite his personal history with ISIS and Al-Qaeda, it is nevertheless in al-Sharaa's interest to respond forcefully to the attack, not only to remain on good terms with President Donald Trump — who vowed to "protect persecuted Christians" ahead of the 2024 election and whose administration lifted U.S. sanctions last month — but to counter the internal threat to his rule. After all, ISIS now regards the Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham-led regime as illegitimate.
RELATED: Progressives' Middle East meddling keeps costing innocent lives
Al Jazeera reported that ISIS has repeatedly attacked government forces in recent months, labeling the government an "apostate regime."
Mazhar al-Wais, the Syrian minister of justice, called the bombing a "cowardly crime targeting the unity of Syrians," suggesting that al-Sharaa's regime would not tolerate terrorism.
A senior U.S. official told Blaze News, "This is just another reminder that global jihadists see innocent unarmed Christians as legitimate targets."
"The new government in Damascus will be measured in large part by its willingness to protect minorities and neutralize groups like ISIS," added the official.
Ever distrustful of the regime, the Syrian Network for Human Rights insisted Sunday that "protecting the crime scene at Mar Elias Church is a necessary first step toward establishing the truth and achieving accountability."
'People were praying safely under the eyes of God.'
The watchdog group suggested that extra to securing the site's perimeter and preventing unauthorized entry and tampering with evidence, it is essential that Syrian authorities "regulate the movement of personnel and media to ensure that only authorized forensic teams are allowed to work on site" and to "implement accurate documentation procedures."
The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch said in the immediate wake of the attack, "The treacherous hand of evil struck this evening claiming our lives, along with the lives of our loved ones who fell today as martyrs during the evening Divine Liturgy at the Church of the Prophet Elias in Dweilaa, Damascus."
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I asked Patriarch John X, the primate of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, to convey his heartfelt condolences and support to the families of the victims, and prayed to "the All-Good God to rest the souls of the innocent victims of the attack."
RELATED: Why are Islamists targeting Catholic priests?
Witnesses indicated that when the suicide bomber entered the church and began firing, parishioners heroically charged him, reported the Associated Press. Once confronted, the masked terrorist detonated his vest.
"People were praying safely under the eyes of God," said Fr. Fadi Ghattas, who was present when at least 20 Christians were killed by the explosion. "There were 350 people praying at the church."
Issam Nasr, a witness who was praying inside the church, said he observed some victims get "blown to bits."
"We have never held a knife in our lives," said Nasr, underscoring the defenseless nature of the Christians targeted in Damascus. "All we ever carried were our prayers."
According to International Christian Concern, parish priest Fr. Youhanna Shehata assisted in carrying the remains of over 20 victims out of the church in the wake of the attack.
Blaze News reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Senator Lindsey Graham (S.C.) skipped over a few recent wars in an interview Tuesday to make a historical argument in favor of an American military intervention in Iran — action he has urged for well over a decade.
Gillian Turner, a talking head at Fox News, where Graham has been a frequent guest in recent days, told the senator that while a Ronald Reagan Institute poll found that 84% of Americans say that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon matters to U.S. security and prosperity, "the rub, as you well know, is probably like 110% of Americans don't want to have another 20-year-long or even 20-month-long war in the Middle East."
'I'd rather open up Pandora’s box than empty it.'
A poll conducted by the Economist and YouGov June 13-16 found that 16% of Americans think "U.S. military should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran." Sixty percent of respondents said America should not get involved, and 24% said they weren't sure. When asked whether the U.S. should continue to engage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, 56% said yes.
"If you think radical Islam can be dealt with and ignored — dealt with without being dealt with — then you're wrong," said Graham. "You got to stand up to these people."
RELATED: A treacherous week for America First (and Israel, too)
"We live in a world where we have to defend ourselves," continued the senator, a former proponent of the false Iraqi weapons of mass destruction narrative who co-sponsored the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution of 2002. "I don't think it's going to be 20 months, but here's what I do believe: If we don't get it right now, we're going to pay later."
Graham employed different language but more or less made the same argument 15 years ago, years before he said that "the world is literally about to blow up."
RELATED: Iran is not the next Iraq War — unless we make the same mistake twice
"If you use military force against Iran, you've opened up Pandora's box," he reportedly told a crowd at the American Enterprise Institute in September 2010. "If you allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, you've emptied Pandora's box. I'd rather open up Pandora's box than empty it."
Graham also suggested at the time that military operations should be executed with regime change in mind — something he supported in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
'The men and women who serve, they're the ones going.'
When asked in the interview Tuesday whether he could "make the commitment that this would not lead to a longer war," Graham said, "I can guarantee you that if the ayatollah gets a nuclear weapon, he would use that."
Graham then appeared to insinuate that American troops are required in Iran, stating, "The men and women who serve, they're the ones going — not people answering the poll. And if you ask them, 'Would you be willing to risk your life to stop the ayatollah from having a nuclear weapon?' All of them would say, 'Yes.'"
"We live in a world where you got to confront problems," said Graham. "You want to avoid World War III? Learn the lessons from World War II."
RELATED: Israel’s strategy now rests on one bomb — and it’s American
The senator appeared to insinuate that a failure to help attack Iran was akin to appeasing Adolf Hitler, stressing that American freedom was conditional on attacking Iran: "If we do not fight for our freedom, we will lose it."
Fox News' John Roberts subsequently alluded to the opposition by some Republicans to another regime-change war, referring to Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's recent tweet in which she noted, "Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA. Wishing for murder of innocent people is disgusting. We are sick and tired of foreign wars. All of them. And this one will quickly engulf the Middle East, BRICS, and NATO as countries are required to take a side."
Graham said the Republican opposition to "supporting Israel against Iran could literally be put in a phone booth" and claimed Greene simply doesn't understand the threat posed by the "religious Nazis."
In a separate interview on the same network, Graham implored President Donald Trump to go "all in" on Iran, suggesting that the U.S. should "do joint operations" with Israel if necessary.
On Tuesday, Trump noted on Truth Social that he knew exactly where Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was "hiding." While indicating that Khamenei was "an easy target, but is safe there," Trump promised not to "take him out (kill!), at least not for now."
After indicating American "patience is wearing thin," Trump wrote, "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!"
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Is Donald Trump a warmonger? It’s a simple question, and yet an increasingly popular accusation from corners of the political class and commentariat that once saw him as the clearest alternative to globalist foreign adventurism. But such an accusation also defies the record. Whatever else one might say about Trump, he has been — consistently and vocally — against needless foreign entanglements.
To suggest that he has suddenly pivoted toward militarism is to misunderstand either the man himself or the moment we are in. Trump is not easily swayed from his core convictions. Trade protectionism and anti-interventionism have always been part of his political DNA. On tariffs, he is unbending. And when it comes to war, he has long argued that America must stop serving as the world’s policeman.
Is Iran another Iraq, or is it more like Poland in 1980?
So when people today accuse Trump of abandoning his anti-interventionist principles, we must ask: What evidence do we have that he has changed? And if he has, does that mean he was misleading us all along — or is something else happening?
If you’ve lost your trust in him, fine. Fair enough. But then the question becomes: Who do you trust? Who else has stood on stage, risked his life, and remained — at least in conviction — largely unchanged?
I’m not arguing for blind trust. In fact, I strongly advise against it. Reagan had it right when he quoted a Russian proverb during nuclear disarmament talks with the Soviet Union: “Trust, but verify.” Trust must be earned daily — and verified constantly. But trust, or the absence of it, is central to what we’re facing.
The West is being pulled in two directions: one toward chaos, the other toward renewal. Trust is essential to renewal. Chaos thrives when people lose confidence — in leaders, in systems, in one another.
We are in a moment when clarity is difficult but necessary. And clarity requires asking harder questions than whether someone is “for or against war.”
Too many Americans today fall into four broad categories when it comes to foreign conflict.
First are the trolls — those who aren’t arguing in good faith, but revel in provocation, division, and distrust. Their goal isn’t clarity. It’s chaos.
Second are those who, understandably, want to avoid war but won’t acknowledge the dangers posed by radical Islamist ideology. Out of fear or fatigue, they have chosen willful blindness. This has been a costly mistake in the past.
Third are those who, like me, do not want war but understand that certain ideologies — particularly those of Iran’s theocratic rulers — cannot be ignored or wished away. We study history. We remember 1979. We understand what the “Twelvers” believe.
Twelversare a sect of Shia Islam whose clerics believe the return of the 12th Imam, their messianic figure, can only be ushered in by global conflict and bloodshed. Iran is the only nation in the world to make Twelver Shia its official state religion. The 12th Imam is not a metaphor. It’s doctrine, and it matters.
Finally, there are the hawks. They cheer for conflict. They seek to project American power, often reflexively. And they carry the swagger of certainty, even as history offers them little vindication.
The last few decades have offered sobering lessons. Regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria — none produced flourishing democracies or stable allies. While America is capable of toppling regimes, we’re not so good at manufacturing civil societies. Real liberty requires real leadership on the ground. It requires heroes — people willing to suffer and die not for power, but for principle.
That’s what was missing in Kabul, Baghdad, and Tripoli. We never saw a Washington or a Jefferson emerge. Brave individuals assisted us, but no figures rose to power with whom nations could coalesce.
That is why I ask whether Iran is simply the next chapter in a tired and tragic book — or something altogether different.
Is Iran another Iraq? Or is it more like Poland in 1980? It’s not an easy question, but it’s one we must ask.
During the Cold War, we saw what it looked like when people yearned for freedom. In Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, dissidents risked everything for a chance to escape tyranny. There was a moral clarity. You could hear it in their music, see it in their marches, feel it in the energy that eventually tore down the Berlin Wall.
Is that spirit alive in Iran?
RELATED: Mark Levin sounds alarm: Stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions before it’s too late
We know that millions of Iranians have protested. We know many have disappeared for it. The Persian people are among the best educated in the region. They are culturally rich, historically sophisticated, and far more inclined toward Western ideals than the mullahs who rule them.
But we know Iran’s mullahs are not rational actors.
So again, we must ask: If the people of Iran are capable of throwing off their theocratic oppressors, should the United States support them? If so, how — and what would it cost us?
I am not calling for war. I do not support U.S. military intervention in Iran. But I do support asking better questions. Is it in our national interest to act? Is there a moral imperative we cannot ignore? And do we trust the institutions advising us?
I no longer trust the intelligence agencies. I no longer trust the think tanks that sold us the Iraq War. I certainly don’t trust the foreign policy establishment in Washington that has consistently failed upward.
But I do trust the American people to engage these questions honestly — if they’re willing to think.
I believe we may be entering the first chapter of a final, spiritual conflict — what Scripture calls the last battle. It may take decades to unfold, but the ideological lines are being drawn.
And whether you are for Trump or against him, whether you see Iran as a threat or a distraction, whether you want peace or fear it’s no longer possible — ask the tougher questions.
Because what comes next won’t be determined by slogans. It will be determined by what we truly believe.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn'sFREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
President Donald Trump's track record and repeated commitment to keeping the nation out of "endless wars" suggest that he does not have the interventionist reflex common to most of his predecessors.
Some lawmakers in Washington nevertheless appear uncertain amid the chatter about Iranian regime change, the recent buildup of U.S. forces in the region, the threat of an Iranian attack warranting American retaliation, and Trump's recent remarks — "Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!"
There is now a bipartisan effort underway to limit President Donald Trump's ability to commit the United States to military actions without congressional approval.
Israel launched an attack Thursday on Iran, hammering its nuclear facilities, taking out many of its air defense systems, and eliminating top Iranian military officials.
Iran responded to the apparent decapitation strike with missile and drone attacks, and the two nations have exchanged deadly fire in the days since, threatening to put President Donald Trump's nuclear deal permanently out of reach.
Although the Trump administration initially stressed that the Israeli attacks were undertaken unilaterally and that the U.S. "was not involved" — a message the State Department recently emphasized in a directive to all of its embassies and consular ports — there are indications of foreknowledge and possibly even coordination on the part of Washington.
RELATED: Israel's strategy now rests on one bomb — and it's American
Regardless of its previous involvement, the U.S. has helped Israel shoot down Iranian missiles and drones and appears now to be preparing for another Middle Eastern engagement.
White House spokesman Alex Pfeiffer clarified Monday evening that American forces are not presently attacking Iran but are rather "maintaining their defensive posture."
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth indicated that over the weekend, he "directed the deployment of additional capabilities to the United Central Command Area of Responsibility." The USS Nimitz — set to be decommissioned next year — is among the warships now headed to the Persian Gulf along with a number of refueling planes.
While bolstering America's military presence in the region, Trump nevertheless expressed hope for a peaceful resolution on Monday.
'Iran should have signed the 'deal' I told them to sign.'
Before leaving the G7 summit in Canada early to deal with the Iranian matter, Trump told reporters, "As I've been saying, I think a deal will be signed, or something will happen, but a deal will be signed, and I think Iran is foolish not to sign."
The Wall Street Journal indicated that Iran is desperate for a deal, telling Washington and Jerusalem through intermediaries that it wants an end to the hostilities — something Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly not presently interested in — and that it is ready to negotiate so long as the U.S. stays out of the fight.
"The Iranians know the U.S. is supporting Israel in its defense, and they are sure the U.S. is supporting Israel logistically," an Arab official told the Journal. "But they want guarantees the U.S. won't join the attacks."
The president appeared less hopeful Monday night, writing, "Iran should have signed the 'deal' I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!"
'What we're likely looking at is yet another nation-building exercise in the Middle East.'
The evacuation notice came a day after Netanyahu indicated that regime change "could certainly be the result" of the escalating conflict, which he framed as an "opportunity"; several hours after exiled Iranian crown prince Reza Pahlavi told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo Monday that it was a "matter of time" before the Iranian regime was overthrown; and shortly after Netanyahu said Israel was "doing what we need to do" when asked about plans to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and other lawmakers on the Hill began speaking as though America's direct involvement in the conflict was a forgone conclusion.
"Israel has formally requested a direct US intervention in its war against Iran," Sohrab Ahmari, the Iranian American editor of Compact, noted in an essay on X. "What we're likely looking at is yet another nation-building exercise in the Middle East — except on a much vaster and more complex scale than anything attempted in the post-9/11 wars. In other words: another decade or two wasted in the Middle East. If you don't want that, pray for rapid de-escalation."
On Monday, Trump told reporters on Air Force One he was looking for "an end. A real end. Not a ceasefire — an end."
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — whom Trump said earlier this year "SHOULD BE PRIMARIED" — tweeted Monday evening, "This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution."
RELATED: Trump fires off serious threat to Iran — and then leaves G7 forum early to return to White House
"I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement," continued Massie. "I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution."
Massie's initial pitch drew commitments from numerous Democrats, including California Rep. Ro Khanna, who wrote, "Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?"
Sen. Tim Kaine, the Virginia Democrat who was Hillary Clinton's running mate in her most recent failed presidential bid, also took action Monday aimed at barring Trump from potentially embroiling the U.S. in a Middle Eastern conflict.
Kaine's war powers resolution would require a debate and a vote prior to the use of military force against Iran.
"It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States," Kaine said in a statement. "I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict."
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) also introduced legislation with several other Democrats Monday that would prohibit the use of federal funds for any use of military force in or against Iran without specific congressional authorization, stating, "Another war in the Middle East could cost countless lives, waste trillions more dollars and lead to even more deaths, more conflict, and more displacement."
Blaze News reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
At the start of this year, the International Atomic Energy Agency warned that the Islamic Republic of Iran was “pressing the gas pedal” on its nuclear activities. In response to its latest censure by the IAEA’s board of governors, the Iranian regime announced plans to expand its nuclear facilities in ways that would further accelerate the pace of its uranium enrichment. This came after more than four years of those facilities enriching the material to 60% fissile purity, putting some of Iran’s stockpiles just a short technical step away from weapons grade.
The pending upgrades threaten to narrow Iran’s “breakout time” for nuclear weapons capability. Furthermore, recent intelligence reports have revealed the existence of another clandestine Iranian program to develop nuclear warheads. The window of opportunity for halting Iran’s progress toward nuclear breakout is rapidly closing, and Western powers must take decisive action now.
Washington doesn’t need to deploy troops, drop bombs, or provide financial or military aid. All it needs to do is support the Iranian people’s right to choose their own leaders.
But the nuclear threat is only one of many pressing issues related to the Islamic Republic. As it develops, so too does Tehran’s strategy for redirecting its regional force projection following the overthrow of its key regional ally, Bashar al-Assad. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime is actively working to cultivate broader international relationships that might threaten the Western-led world order.
The international community has long clung to the notion that diplomacy can solve the nuclear crisis. But negotiations with Iran have repeatedly proven fruitless, and there has been no meaningful progress toward re-implementing, much less expanding, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal since the United States pulled out of it in 2018. President Trump has declared his interest in developing a “Verified Nuclear Peace Agreement” now that he has reclaimed the Oval Office, but his efforts to achieve it are now appropriately backed up by a policy of “maximum pressure” on the regime.
Trump has said that he would prefer a new agreement over “bombing Iran to smithereens,” but the choice is a false one. The options are not war or an agreement that Iran will surely violate; a far better solution is for the United States to facilitate regime change in Iran.
We have already witnessed the appetite for regime change. In September 2022, a popular, nationwide uprising presented the greatest challenge to the theocratic dictatorship since its inception 43 years earlier. The backlash resulted from the horrific killing of Mahsa Amini by the morality police, but it was only one in a series of demands for regime change, including earlier uprisings in 2018 and 2019.
One of the common refrains in those protests was a phrase long associated with the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (also known as MEK) and its political coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran: “Death to the oppressor, whether Shah or Supreme Leader.” To those who have followed the opposition to the Iranian regime, the use of this slogan was clearly to signal support for the MEK and the NCRI leader Maryam Rajavi.
It is no accident that so many of the protesters were women. Rajavi herself emphasized those women’s role earlier this month in a speech to roughly 20,000 Iranian expatriates rallying in Paris and in an international conference at the headquarters of NCRI on February 22 in the run-up to International Women’s Day. She will no doubt do so again when the NCRI stages another demonstration in Washington, D.C., on Saturday. The Trump administration should pay close attention to the message from the Paris event and the major demonstration in Washington, expected to be attended by thousands of Iranians and to the enduring message of the NCRI.
Rajavi’s detailed 10-point plan promises Iranians not only equal rights, civil liberties, religious tolerance, and democratic governance but a definitive end to the regime’s nuclear program. Western policymakers need to commit to standing with the Iranian people and recognize that Iran’s women are leading the charge to overthrow the clerical regime.
Washington doesn’t need to deploy troops, drop bombs, or provide financial or military aid. All it needs to do is support the Iranian people’s right to choose their own leaders.
American taxpayer dollars have funded regime change in Hungary and housing and transportation for immigrants in the United States, among other left-wing agendas, as discussed during testimony in Tuesday’s House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight hearing. The subcommittee held the hearing to examine “How Leftist Nonprofit Networks Exploit Federal Tax Dollars to Advance a Radical Agenda.” […]
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.
Escalating our war with Iran by pursuing regime change and nation-building would be a colossal mistake.
The right is not the party of regime change, the left is.
www.theblaze.com