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.

When Will We Have Wise Energy Policies?

             As you probably remember, Joe Biden’s war on the oil industry began on his first day in office, January 20, 2021, when he stopped drilling on federal lands and the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. Then, he started importing oil from Russia. After Russia invaded Ukraine, pressure mounted on Biden to ban Russian oil imports. Today, Biden announced a nationwide ban on oil, coal, and natural gas from Russia. At least, America will not be openly funding Putin’s war on Ukraine!

            No one should assume that Biden made this decision from a principled stand. How do we know? The administration has not taken the necessary policy changes for the ban to be effective. Katie Tubb explained the situation in her article titled “Russian Oil Import Ban Just a Distraction From Biden’s Anti-Energy Policies.” 

The president’s decision came in the wake of proposed bipartisan legislation, political support from Democratic congressional leadership, public support, and the initiative of many companies to disassociate themselves with Russian products and markets. If he didn’t act, it’s very likely Congress would have led the way instead.

Yet, the administration inexplicably has done little to change course in light of the current realities. While Biden made no secret of his anti-energy policy agenda from the first month of his presidency, the administration hasn’t even pumped the brakes on regulations that will increase the cost of energy and block Americans’ ability to use it.

Just in the past week, the administration has only doubled down to:

·         propose new climate standards to regulate conventional trucks out of existence.

·        decline to appeal a federal court decision vacating the only lease sale held on federal lands or waters (despite clear statutory direction from Congress to regularly hold sales).

·         propose any day now what some are calling “the biggest rule … the [Securities and Exchange Commission] has done in quite some time”; namely, mandating companies disclose greenhouse emissions from their entire supply chain.

While asking American energy companies for short-term increases in production to bail the administration out of political trouble, Biden has made it very clear that his administration intends to put the coal, oil, and perhaps even natural gas industries in America out of business.

            I do not claim to be an energy expert, but I have questions about the Biden goal. How does he plan to make enough electricity to power all the vehicles, heat and cool all the homes and business, etc. without coal, oil, or natural gas? Does he think the dwindling amount of water will create enough electricity? Does he intend to rely on windmills? Does he plan to build nuclear power plants? If so, it seems like it would be better to build the new power plants before destroying the current energy businesses.

            I keep thinking about Texas in February 2021. My daughter and her family were out of power for four days. The “green energy” windmills froze from all the ice and snow on them because there was not enough wind to keep the snow off the blades. If their cars had been powered by electricity, they would have been stuck at home without heat. Relying only on green energy sounds dangerous to me. A plan to use all of our options seems to be better than relying only on green energy. Tubb continued with her explanation:

The Biden administration is trying to single-handedly commit the U.S. to a centrally planned energy sector built around a narrow set of politically preferred, unproven energy technologies that the administration presumes are the solution to global warming. But as the world has seen, Europe is paying a steep financial and political price for its policy choices over the years to curtail its own energy production and opt for Russian imports. [Emphasis mine.]

            The Biden administration is full of questionable ideas about energy. Now that he has banned the import of oil from Russia, Biden is seeking soil from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. What could go wrong! The United States has a large store of oil and natural gas just waiting to be used. It also has the policies in place to make the extraction of oil and natural gas as clean as possible. Instead, this administration seeks to access oil from other countries who do not have such policies in place to protect the environment. Someone should tell them that it is the same environment – whether it is in the United States, Russia, or Iran.

            Oil is currently being drilled on state and private lands in the United States despite Biden’s anti-energy agenda. This is the only reason why our gasoline and heating oil prices are not much higher. When Biden and White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki state that oil companies are not using the 9000 existing leases for drilling on federal lands and waters, they show their ignorance about how the “leasing, permitting, and energy production on federal lands and waters happens.” Instead, they shift the blame to others and try to force Americans to transition to green energy. Tubb ended with the following suggestions:

Biden must change course and make the policy changes necessary to weaken Russia’s influence in global energy markets. Not only is such a shift extremely popular – a recent poll showed 70% of Americans support energy production in the U.S. – but to do otherwise puts Biden in direct conflict with the well-being of Americans, who get nearly 80% of their energy from oil, natural gas, and coal.

The U.S. also needs to look to its allies to play their part: Europe must become an energy-producing region again.

The Biden administration needs to follow up words with real action: Call off the regulatory hounds and unleash the American energy sector – all of it.