Is This War Just About Iran, or Is There More to the Equation?

Iran has been threatening and/or attacking America and Americans for nearly fifty years. Every U.S. President from Jimmy Carter to Joe Biden drew red lines and then allowed Iran to cross them. Now they have formed an axis with Russia, China, and North Korea.

After trying to negotiate with Iran for months, President Donald Trump recognized that Iran was using the negotiations to stall the US while using the time to build more ballistic missiles. Trump said, “no more,” and then approved “a decisive military strike last weekend that targeted hundreds of sites and eliminated key figures in Iran’s top leadership.”

Glenn Beck and Jack Carr, former Navy SEAL and bestselling author, unpacked “what this pivotal moment truly means for the region and beyond.” A portion of the discussion is below, but you can link for more information here. 

When he first heard the news that the U.S. and Israel had launched a joint military attack on Iran, Carr’s initial reaction was one of “sadness.”

“It made me sad because diplomacy had failed,” he says, arguing that Trump’s maximum-pressure campaign against Iran was doomed to fail because acquiescence to any of the three non-negotiables – no nuclear weapons, no ballistic missiles, and no supporting terrorist proxies – would make the Iranian regime look “weak,” something it cannot suffer if it wants to stay in power.

“Any covert action we’d attempted over the last year or in previous administrations over the past decades, that has failed also, and now we’re in a full-scale military engagement with Iran,” he laments.

Glenn agrees wholeheartedly: “Jimmy Carter said, ‘This can’t stand.’ … Ronald Reagan said, ‘They got to stop.’ … H.W. Bush, ‘It’s got to stop. They got to get to the negotiating table.’ Clinton said that, W. Bush said that, Obama said that, Trump said that in the first term, Biden said that.”

“I mean, at some point you’re like, this is insane. We’ve tried giving them billions of dollars; we’ve tried holding money back; we’ve tried carrots and sticks, and nothing works,” he continues, calling Trump “the first one to say, ‘I’m not kicking the can down to the next president. It’s over.’”

“Some of [those former presidents] actually helped Iran get either more powerful or gave them more options when it came to building up these different weapons  programs, to crushing any popular uprising or protests. So I’m not surprised that we got to this point,” Carr says.

“When people declare war on you and tell you that they want to destroy you, you probably don’t want that person to have a nuclear weapon or to have options that can lead to your demise,” he adds.

But Glenn thinks this military operation against Iran is “much bigger” than preventing the terrorist regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“This is about Trump redesigning the entire world and going after CRINK,” he says, arguing that Trump is aiming to “take the I” out of CRINK, “which hurts oil for China, hurts money through oil for Russia,” and weakens Iran’s supply of drones to Russia.

“To look at this just as Iran, I think you’ll never understand why we did this. Do you believe that’s true, or am I wrong?” he asks.

“You’re absolutely right,” Carr says.

He explains that Trump’s military strike on Iran disrupts China’s crucial economic and technological lifeline to the regime. China buys huge amounts of discounted Iranian oil to evade U.S. sanctions and has committed $400 billion over 25 years to Iran – including selling advanced surveillance technology that helps the Iranian government monitor and suppress its own people.

By weakening or breaking this support, the U.S. not only destabilizes Iran’s regime but also frees up American attention and resources to address bigger long-term threats – confronting China over Taiwan (the island China clams as its own) and the tiny but vital computer chips known as semiconductors (the essential “brains” powering phones, computers, cars, AI systems, and military equipment), most of which are produced in Taiwan – while also handling threats from Russia.

“So you’re exactly right. This is not just about Iran,” he says.

What Is the Weapon of Surprise Being Used Against Iran?

In a strange twist of fate, Iran is getting a taste of its own medicine. Iran provided Russia with drones in Ukraine, and the United States reversed engineered them to use in Iran. Carlos Garcia reported the following in his article published at The Blaze. 

The Pentagon said that Iran is getting pummeled by suicide drones using technology that Iran itself developed and used against U.S. allies, including Ukraine.

The U.S. attacked leaders and commanders of the Iranian regime in a joint operation with Israeli forces beginning Saturday morning. President Donald Trump said Monday that the operation was planned to last four weeks but that the military was prepared to continue “for as long as necessary.”

“CENTCOM’s Task Fore Scorpion Strike – for the first time in history – is using one-way attack drones in combat during Operation Epic Fury. These low-cost drones, modeled after Iran’s Shahed drones, are now delivering American-made retribution,” reads a statement from U.S. Central Command.

The LUCAS drone was developed by Arizona-based SpektreWorks and costs about $35,000 each, which is significantly less than other options.

Who Are the Heroes in the Iran War?

My VIPs for this week are the men and women who put themselves between their home country and the people who threaten to destroy their nations. At this particular time, it is the airmen and the sailors, along with all their support personnel, who are in harm’s way as they drop bombs and shoot down missiles and drones.

On Saturday, February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched strikes against Iran in Operation Epic Fury. The purpose is to destroy their ballistic missiles and make it impossible for Iran to continue their reign of terror with nuclear power.

This is not the start of a new war because Iran has been at war with the US since 1979. Their favorite refrain is “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They call the US the “Big Satan” and Israel the “Little Satan.” The US hopes to end the 47-year war in this operation.

Within the opening minutes of the attack, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed along with 48 of the top Iranian leaders. They were gathered for a meeting in person because they did not trust electronic meetings. Six US personnel have died during the operation.

According to an article by Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell, the Iranian people will choose their new leader. President Donald Trump’s key objective for the operation is to ensure that Iran never gains the ability to have a nuclear weapon. He also wants the Iranian people to have an opportunity to shape the destiny of their country.

The USA and Israel were alone in the attack until Iran shot missiles into neighboring countries. Following the initiation of the operation by the US and Israel, multiple nations have joined the effort. 

… The United States has used military bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait and possibly Israel to support its air campaign against Iranian targets, with bases in all these targets having come under attack….

Iranian ballistic missile strikes have been responded to with intense missile defence operations by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, which have employed their own air defence systems to protect U.S. bases and other targets from Iranian strikes, making them direct participants in the war effort….

In addition to the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait, the United Kingdom and France have joined the war effort. Spain has refused to allow US fighter jets to use air bases there.

Should Religious Leaders Be Involved in Birthright Citizenship Decision?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is President Donald Trump’s executive order rescinding American citizenship to anyone born on American soil and the recent action by the Conference of Catholic Bishops inserting themselves into the Supreme Court decision. Could this be a case of a religion stepping over the line between Church and State?

Steve Cortes, president of the League of American Workers and advisor to CatholicVote, shared his thoughts about the bishops willingly inserting themselves into the decision. He wrote that they “have downgraded themselves from their historic leadership role as bishops to the subservient position of mere pawns.” He believes that they have allowed “themselves to be manipulated by leftists pushing secular humanist, globalist ideologies,” specifically on the birthright citizenship issue. 

The Conference of Catholic Bishops issued an “amicus” brief to the Supreme Court, which will soon rule on President Donald Trump’s executive order to rescind the long-debated precedent of American citizenship by birthright.

Does every birth occurring on U.S. soil mean automatic citizenship, even if the parents trespassed into America as illegal aliens?

Here is the crux of the bishops’ misbegotten argument:

“Birthright citizenship aligns with the Church’s teaching that humans were created as social beings and that political authority is morally bound to affirm and protect the inherent dignity of every human person in the community.”

Of course, the inherent logical flaw here contends that the human dignity of every person can only be ratified by virtue of conferring U.S. citizenship. Given this absurd line of thinking, the United States is then bound to grant American citizenship to every single human on the planet, since they all possess clear human dignity as sons and daughters of the eternal Creator.

Kelsey Reinhardt, president of CatholicVote, correctly deconstructs the actual philosophical danger with this clearly politicized tactic, masked within the language of pastoral teaching:

“That argument does not strengthen the Church’s moral witness – it weakens it. By tying dignity to civil status, the bishops inadvertently echo the logic of the abortion industry: rights exist because the state recognizes them.”

After all, legitimate civil authority is validated by God himself precisely because it intrinsically leads to human flourishing. Societies can only succeed – and only seek the will of God freely – when governed by the rule of law. As such, prudential judgment about identifying the qualifications for citizenship lies with civil authorities who must prioritize the common good of existing citizens before admitting newcomers, especially at a massive scale.

These principles have been taught by the Church for time immemorial and were perhaps best elucidated by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Aquinas weighed the prerogatives of citizens against any arguments for indiscriminate openness. His Thomistic vision flowed form the timeless maxim that “charity begins at home.”

As such, Aquinas even argued that full citizenship for immigrants should not be granted until the second or third generation….

Moreover, looking at the realities of birthright citizenship today, in an era of global travel and trade, the bishops seem to willfully ignore some very unpleasant abuses of America’s generosity.

First, “birth tourism” has exploded. It is simply routine now for expectant mothers who live near the U.S. southern border to legally cross into America s visitors for the express purpose of having a U.S.-born child with full citizenship.

For the wealthy of the world, an entire industry now exists to purchase U.S. holidays that include giving birth.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported on Chinese moguls effectively “renting” American women and their wombs to have dozes of U.S.-citizen babies per father … a grave violation of Catholic teaching regarding family life and procreation.

So, clearly the bishops overstepped by inserting the authority of the Church into a partisan legal matter. Honest people and sincere Catholics can disagree on this important issue. But by framing it in such lofty moral terms, these men acted far more like activists than like shepherds of Christ’s flock.

Over time, such actions diminish the authority earned by the Catholic Church over the years as a pillar of American society.

 

How Can We Develop Faith Like Unto That of Abraham?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Genesis 18-23 in a lesson titled “Is Any Thing Too Hard for the Lord?” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

Abraham and Sarah’s life, filled with events both heartbreaking and heartwarming, is evidence of a truth Abraham learned in a vision—that we are on earth to be proven, “to see if [we] will do all things whatsoever the Lord [our] God shall command” (Abraham 3:25). Would Abraham and Sarah prove faithful? Would they continue to have faith in God’s promise of a large posterity, even when they were still childless in their old age? And once Isaac was born, would their faith endure the unthinkable—a command to sacrifice the very son through whom God had promised to fulfill that covenant?

Abraham and Sarah trusted God, and He trusted them (see Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3). In Genesis 18-23, we find stories from the lives of Abraham, Sarah, and others that can prompt us to think about our own willingness to believe God’s promises, to flee wickedness and never look back, and to trust God regardless of the sacrifice. In proving us, God also improves us.

This scripture block contains numerous principles, including: (1) The Lord fulfills His promises in His own time (Genesis 18:9-14; 21:1-7); (2) The Lord commands me to flee wickedness and not look back (Genesis 19:12-29); (3) What did Lot’s wife do wrong? (Genesis 19:26); (4) Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac is a similitude of God (Genesis 22:1-19). This essay will discuss principle #4 about Abraham’s sacrifice.

We do not know all the reasons that God commanded Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, but we know it was to test Abraham’s faith in God. We also know that it was “a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son” (Jacob 4:5). There are numerous symbols or similarities between Abraham’s offering of Isaac and the Father’s offering of His Son, Jesus Christ. You might consider making a chart like the one below as you study Genesis 22:1-19.

 

Abraham and Isaac                                             Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ

Isaac was the only begotten son of Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 22:2; see also Hebrews 11:17).	Jesus is the Only Begotten of the Father (John 3:16).
Isaac was to be offered in place of a lamb (Genesis 22:7-9).	Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

 

In your studies, you could look for symbols or similarities to the Savior’s atoning sacrifice that you find most meaningful. You might sing or review the lyrics of a hymn that shows Heavenly Father’s love for us, such as “God Loved Us, So He Sent His Son,” Hymns,  no. 187. You might record your feelings about Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and the sacrifice that They made for you and me. Here is a link to a video about Abraham’s sacrifice. 

President Jeffrey R. Holland’s message “Behold the Lamb of God” (Ensign or Liahona, May 2019, 44-46) will add to our study about the sacrifice of the Savior. 

Brothers and sisters, this hour ordained of the Lord is the most sacred hour of our week. By commandment, we gather for the most universally received ordinance in the Church. It is in memory of Him who asked if the cup He was about to drink could pass, only to press on because He knew that for our sake it could not pass. It will help us if we remember that a symbol of that cup is slowly making its way down the row toward us at the hand of an 11- or 12-year-old deacon.

When the sacred hour comes to present our sacrificial gift to the Lord, we do have our own sins and shortcomings to resolve; that’s why we’re there. But we might be more successful in such contrition if we are mindful of the other broken hearts and sorrowing spirits that surround us. Seated not far away are some who may have wept—outwardly or inwardly—through the entire sacramental hymn and the prayers of those priests. Might we silently take note of that and offer our little crust of comfort and our tiny cup of compassion—might we dedicate it to them? or to the weeping, struggling member who is not in the service and, except for some redemptive ministering on our part, won’t be there next week either? or to our brothers and sisters who are not members of the Church at all but are our brothers and sisters? There is no shortage of suffering in this world, inside the Church and out, so look in any direction and you will find someone whose pain seems too heavy to bear and whose heartache seems never to end. One way to “always remember him” would be to join the Great Physician in His never-ending task of lifting the load from those who are burdened and relieving the pain of those who are distraught.

How Can We Prepare to Escape in Time of Emergency?

Families are stronger when they are prepared to act quickly in times of emergency, and strong families make communities, states, and nations stronger. There are numerous types of emergencies, such as house fires, floods, or wars, when families are forced to leave their house with little notice. Those who are prepared in advance can act quickly.

The U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem told their nonessential staff to leave TODAY. Individuals and families were warned that airline seats would be in high demand. “Focus on getting a seat to anyplace from which you can then continue travel to DC, but the first priority will be getting expeditiously out of country.” 

This is obviously a “first come first served” situation, similar to Afghanistan and Vietnam. Most of us can remember the flights out of Afghanistan with crowds of people trying to get on the few remaining airplanes. Older individuals can remember the fall of Vietnam and people climbing on the roofs of buildings, hoping to get into a helicopter to safety.

Not all emergencies fall into this category. Most emergencies may cover a large area, such as a wildfire or a flood, but individuals are basically on their own to get out.

Preparation is key to survival in many of the emergencies – physical survival first and then moving forward into future life. So how can one prepare for such an emergency?

This site gave valuable insight into how to “Be Prepared in Case You Need to Evacuate.” It gave “some key steps to consider” when preparing for a quick escape in case of an emergency. 

·         Create an emergency kit: Include essentials like water, non-perishable food, medications, and important documents [and information]. [Include communication devices and anything critical to life after the escape.]

·         Plan multiple evacuation routes: Ensure everyone in your household knows where to go and how to get there. [Identify exits to use and how to communicate with each other.]

·         Stay informed: Sign up for alerts from local emergency management agencies and the National Weather Service.

·         Practice evacuation routes: Walk or drive along each road at different times of day to spot potential obstacles.

·         Designate a meeting spot: Choose a primary location everyone can see from a distance to gather after leaving the house.

·         [Be aware of your surroundings and understand potential or real risks in the area, such as wildfires, flooding, or downed electrical wires.]

The site almost guarantees success: “By following these steps, you can ensure a quick and safe escape in case of an emergency. Remember to keep your emergency kit updated and to stay informed about local conditions.”

Why Is Greenlandic Security Essential to America?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns national security. With Russia and China venturing into the Arctic, America would be wise to install deterrents as quickly as possible. President Donald Trump recognized the threat to America and said that America needed to acquire Greenland. There were discussions, and the United States came away with the ability to own certain parts of Greenland, which would be sovereign territory to the U.S., on which to build military bases.

These discussions brought to forefront “the issue of Chinese and Russian threats to the forefront, particularly as it relates to their growing interest in the arctic,” according to an article by Robert Peters, senior research fellow for Strategic Deterrence at The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security.

As noted elsewhere, China seeks to establish economic presence in the Arctic – and almost assuredly, long-term options for military operations in the region, to include “space and satellite warfare to strategic positioning of nuclear-armed submarines.”

Russia similarly has increased its air and maritime operations in the Arctic and may bring its gray zone activities into the region as a means to disrupt NATO activities.

Indeed, the prospect for America’s adversaries to fire missile salvos at the United States is so grave that it prompted one retired Air Force general to write, “Nowhere is America’s exposure to attack more acute than from its Arctic approaches – the most direct corridor through which both Russia and China could strike the United States.” What then should be done about Greenlandic security, given the emerging threat to the Arctic, as well as North America and Europe?

To begin with, the United States and Denmark should increase their joint military presence in Greenland so that they can better monitor air and maritime threats within the region.

Such efforts should include ground forces trained in arctic or alpine combat stationed at key points along Greenland’s northern coast.

Indeed, Greenland would be an ideal location for NATO militaries to engage in arctic training operations – which not only benefits military members engaged in such exercises but helps establish a military presence.

In addition, the U.S. and Denmark should work with other NATO allies, such as Finland and Canada, to station icebreakers along the northernmost settlements, such as Qaanaaq and Ittoqqortoormiit. Such icebreakers would enable allied ships to operate in the Arctic year-round, which could enable allied navies to engage in effective combat operations even in winter, but are also important when it comes to sovereignty claims. Russia’s icebreaker fleet, the largest in the world, enables Moscow to deploy naval assets to the Arctic, regardless of ice coverage.

Also, the United States should rotate Army units capable of carrying medium- and intermediate-range fires to Greenland so that they can engage and, if necessary, destroy sea and air threats that may transit arctic air or maritime space.

Perhaps most importantly, Greenland is an ideal place in which the U.S. can station sensors and radars that would be critically important to building the Golden Dome missile defense architecture….

If Denmark proposes such concrete steps to Washington, wherein both countries could cooperate to shore up Greenlandic security, both nations’ legitimate security concerns could be address. At the same time, they would be able to mitigate Russian and Chinese threats to North America, Europe, and the Arctic.