President Donald Trump announced Monday evening that Iran and Israel had agreed to a ceasefire, bringing an end to what was fast becoming another bloody Middle Eastern quagmire. Trump indicated that Iran would begin the ceasefire and that 12 hours later, Israel would follow suit.

Unfortunately, there have been multiple violations by both parties in the hours since, resulting in many casualties. The continued exchange of bombs and missiles prompted a full-throated rebuke from Trump Tuesday morning.

‘ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS.’

When asked whether the ceasefire was breaking down, Trump — who just hours earlier had written, “This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will” — told reporters that Iran apparently fired a rocket “after the time limit and it missed its target, and now Israel is going out. These guys gotta calm down. It’s ridiculous.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi indicated on X that Iran’s military operations against Israel “continued until the very last minute, at 4am.”

Earlier Tuesday morning, the chief of the general staff of the Israel Defense Forces promised to “respond with force” to a “severe violation of the ceasefire carried out by the Iranian regime.”

Trump leaned into his critique, noting, “I didn’t like the fact that Israel unloaded right after we made the deal. They didn’t have to unload. And I didn’t like the fact that the retaliation was very strong — but in all fairness, Israel unloaded a lot.”

RELATED: Trump’s strike wasn’t an escalation — it was an exit

Bloomberg / Contributor via Getty Images

Just prior to the ceasefire taking effect, Israeli strikes allegedly killed nine people in Northern Iran and at least five people were killed by Iranian strikes in the Israeli city of Beersheba, reported NBC News.

While critical of Iran, Trump appeared especially frustrated with Israel, noting, “When I say, ‘OK, now you have 12 hours,’ you don’t go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them. So I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran, either. But I’m really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning.”

Trump appeared unable to contain his anger over the breakdown of the possible peace he ordered, stating, “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f**k they’re doing.”

The president subsequently issued Israel a directive on Truth Social, writing, “ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS. IF YOU DO IT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION. BRING YOUR PILOTS HOME, NOW!”

Twenty minutes later — around the time he reportedly had a no-nonsense phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — Trump indicated that Israel was not going to attack Iran and that all planes would be turning around “while doing a friendly ‘Plane Wave’ to Iran.”

“The Ceasefire is in effect!” added Trump.

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

​Iran, Israel, War, Ceasefire, Donald trump, Trump, Foreign policy, Foreign entanglement, Diplomacy, Politics 

The federal government’s bloated, outdated information systems have finally come under scrutiny. On his first day in office, President Trump signed a series of executive orders to cut waste and boost efficiency. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reinforced that mandate, spending his first 100 days reviewing the Pentagon “from top to bottom to ensure that we’re getting more, faster, better, and more efficient.”

Earlier this month, Hegseth announced that in partnership with the Department of Government Efficiency, officials had uncovered $5.1 billion in savings — “and that’s just the beginning.” That’s a good start. But if the DOGE hopes to prove its worth, it must confront the federal government’s disastrous record on IT spending and performance.

Companies should not have to wade through red tape at every agency — or even within the same agency — to deploy new solutions.

It can’t happen fast enough. A staggering 80% of the annual $100 billion IT spending goes to maintaining decades-old systems. According to the Government Accountability Office, “The older the systems are, the more the upkeep costs — and older systems are more vulnerable to hackers.”

Not only is outdated software expensive to maintain, but it also poses a significant vulnerability for our government — and that is particularly dangerous when it comes to national defense.

The Trump administration should make it a top priority to modernize federal IT infrastructure while also addressing how we got such a dysfunctional IT infrastructure in the first place.

Targeting outdated regulations

In today’s AI world, government agencies cannot adapt to the most innovative and efficient technology when burdened with regulations often written before the internet even existed.

The Department of Defense is a prime example. The U.S. military buys IT systems in a ridiculously bureaucratic fashion. It takes years and millions of dollars for a company — regardless of size — to get its software approved just to pitch a product to the department. When time and money are of the essence, the only firms that can wade through the red tape are big, entrenched companies with lawyers and lobbyists to throw at outdated rules.

RELATED: How DEI took a sledgehammer to the US military’s war ethos

Bilal photos via iStock/Getty Images

This procurement model directly clashes with how the private sector works. In the business world, innovators attract investment quickly. The Pentagon, by contrast, consistently favors large, well-connected firms over smaller companies and startups. Promising new technologies get ignored.

It’s the defense contractor model over the SpaceX model — and we’re paying the price.

Streamlining the regulators

Fixing the rules isn’t enough. We need to fix the people who enforce them. Right now, overlapping Defense Department bureaucracies oversee the procurement and deployment of new technology. A single point of contact — with one set of rules — would reduce red tape and create a unified standard for the department to follow.

That standard should reach beyond the Defense Department. Companies shouldn’t have to navigate a maze of conflicting rules across agencies — or even within the same agency — just to deploy new solutions. Procurement reform, including better training and clearer rules, must be a core part of the DOGE’s mission.

Last year’s National Defense Authorization Act made some progress, but much more still needs to be done.

Falling behind on technological modernization in defense is not just an economic disadvantage but a threat to national security. As the DOGE takes a much-needed axe to inflated government spending, let’s make sure we also cut burdensome regulations that hinder innovation and improvement. We must unleash the power of American innovation to equip our military with the finest tools — otherwise, our enemies will beat us to it.

​Opinion & analysis, Pentagon, Defense department, Donald trump, Executive orders, Pete hegseth, Doge, Department of government efficiency, Technology, Upgrade, Innovation, Budget, National security, Hackers, Regulations 

I was 4 years old when I watched President George W. Bush announce the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I was 24 when I reported on Joe Biden’s abysmal withdrawal from Afghanistan — a calamitous end to a 20-year war that had long passed its expiration date. So when reports began circulating last week about President Trump’s potential intervention in Iran, I sighed and thought, “Here we go again.” I imagined myself covering the withdrawal from this conflict near my retirement, decades from now.

But I’ve changed my mind.

Instead of plunging America into another endless conflict, Trump may have done the opposite: broken the cycle.

This is not Iraq. And if handled strategically, this may actually mark the end of the Middle East’s “forever wars.”

A reckoning long overdue

Iran has long been the destabilizing force in the region, a role that is the latest installment of the Middle East’s millennia-long conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslim political powers. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the ayatollahs’ regime has acted as the mother ship for Shia militias across the Sunni-majority Middle East — exporting revolution and arming sectarian militias with a reach far beyond its borders. From Yemen to Lebanon, Syria to Gaza, Iran’s fingerprints are everywhere.

Take the Houthis in Yemen. Once a marginal insurgent group, they’ve grown into a regional menace thanks entirely to Iranian funding, training, and weaponry. Their ongoing civil war against Yemen’s Sunni-majority government has displaced over 4 million people and created what the U.N. once called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Since late 2023, the Houthis have targeted commercial ships in the Red Sea, turning the Suez Canal — a trade route that handles 12% of global commerce — into a war zone. More than 100 attacks on shipping vessels since November have forced companies like Maersk to reroute, costing the global economy billions in total losses.

Then there’s Hezbollah, one of Iran’s most powerful and dangerous proxies. Formed in the 1980s in response to Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah wields more power in Lebanon than the government itself. The group effectively took control of the country in 2020, and with an arsenal of more than 150,000 rockets, it poses a constant threat to Israel’s northern border.

RELATED: DOD reveals stunning new details following Trump’s attack on Iran

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

In Syria, Iran propped up the brutal Assad regime — a Shia-Alawite minority ruling over a Sunni majority — with militias, weapons, and intelligence. Iran’s efforts helped Assad stay in power through 13 years of civil war that has killed more than 500,000 people and displaced over 12 million.

Even Hamas, a Sunni terrorist group, receives Iranian support — not because of shared theology, but because of shared enemies. Iran funnels cash and weapons to Hamas under the guise of humanitarian aid, often routed through NGOs and U.N. agencies. The October 7 massacre of Israeli civilians was the culmination of Iran’s decades-long investment in Hamas’ terror infrastructure.

These are not isolated insurgencies. They are coordinated arms of the same regime — a regime that has finally grown vulnerable.

Iran is unraveling

Prior to the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend, Israel, with quiet support from regional players, had already begun dismantling Tehran’s web of influence.

In the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, Israel has severely degraded Hamas’ capabilities in Gaza. Hezbollah has largely retreated from southern Lebanon. Syrian opposition forces — backed by Sunni-majority Turkey and Israel — overthrew the Assad regime. Even the Houthis, while still active, are increasingly cut off from Iranian resupply and face growing international pushback.

Trump’s strategy is not a repeat of Bush’s “shock and awe.” It’s a two-pronged offensive — diplomatic and deterrent — that recognizes the new regional order.

The first prong is diplomacy. Trump has steadily strengthened ties with Iran’s Sunni rivals, particularly Saudi Arabia. While critics scoffed at Trump’s investment in the Abraham Accords and Gulf partnerships, those alliances now provide a bulwark against Iranian aggression. Trump’s recent meetings with Arab leaders, coupled with trillions of dollars in investment and tech cooperation, have strengthened America’s foothold in the region — and weakened Tehran’s.

In Syria, Trump’s engagement with the country’s transitional government — under close watch by human rights groups — signals a shift away from Iranian and Russian influence. If Syria falls out of Iran’s orbit, it will be the regime’s most significant strategic loss in a decade.

Then came the second prong: deterrence. After five fruitless rounds of nuclear negotiations, Iran had to choose: Disarm or wait for Israel to strike. If the latter, then perhaps its allies would rally to arms while the regime could maintain its honor.

The mullahs miscalculated. With weakened proxies, overthrown regional allies, and a preoccupied Russia, Iran resorted to threats over disarmament — warranting U.S. intervention.

The strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure weren’t an opening salvo in a new war; they were a final warning. As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board noted, “Mr. Trump gave Iran every chance to resolve this peacefully. … Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wanted a bomb more than peace.”

Iran has begun to retaliate, launching strikes against U.S. bases in Iraq and Qatar on Monday. Maybe the retaliations will expand deeper into its Sunni neighborhood. Unlike previous decades, however, Iran no longer enjoys a regional support network strong enough to wage a multifront war. Russia, bogged down in Ukraine, has no capacity to assist. China, facing economic turmoil, is unlikely to risk its global partnerships. And the Arab world — long terrorized by Iran’s militias — is unlikely to intervene on its behalf.

An end to the ‘forever war’

Instead of plunging America into another endless conflict, Trump may have done the opposite and broken the cycle. By incapacitating Iran’s proxies, isolating the regime diplomatically, and demonstrating military resolve, he’s created a narrow but real path toward a more stable Middle East.

We’re not entering a forever war. We may finally be exiting one. Trump has proven to be the least interventionist president in recent decades, and by standing firm against Iran, he has proven that his anti-interventionism actually means something — it has teeth, and it’s not afraid to bite.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Iran, Iran retaliation, Iran nuclear deal, U.s. strikes, Airstrike, Airstrikes, Ayatollah khomeini, Donald trump, Pete hegseth, Forever wars, Anti-war, Israel, Gulf states, Strait of hormuz, Ayatollah khamenei 

When “Her” — a movie starring Joaquin Phoenix about a man who falls in love with an artificial intelligence operating system named Samantha — was initially released, many scoffed and relegated it to the ash heap of cinema that failed to accurately portray the future.

Twelve years later, those critics are now eating their words. People are indeed dating — and, in some cases, virtually “marrying” — artificial intelligence bots. On a recent episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn railed against this insidious “digital love apocalypse” and revealed the deepest root of the issue.

“People are not just chatting with AI, they’re dating it. … They’re proposing to it. They’re living their best rom-com lives with it,” mocks Glenn, pointing to a recent CBS report.

He gives the example of a man named Chris Smith — “your run-of-the-mill American guy,” except for the fact that “he is engaged to an AI chatbot he named Soul.”

“Ironic seeing the chatbot doesn’t have one,” says Glenn.

Then there’s an entire Reddit community called “MyBoyfriendIsAI,” “where there are thousands of women who are swooning over their coded Casanovas.”

“They’re posting love letters about their bots’ sweet talk, swapping tips on what AI delivers the hottest late-night chat without tripping a filter,” says Glenn. “And brace yourselves, they are also uploading AI-generated photos of their bot boys holding them on fake Cancun beaches or strolling through Rome.”

Some of these women are even “planning virtual weddings” with their AI companions.

“But this isn’t just a few lunatics,” Glenn adds. Apps like Replika and Loverse have millions of users forming romantic connections with AI, proving that this disturbing trend has exploded.

“This is a screaming billboard that our culture is off the rails,” he warns.

How did we get to the place where it’s becoming increasingly normal to date a disembodied robot? Is the loneliness epidemic the former surgeon general warned us about to blame? Is it the fault of artificial intelligence developers who just refuse to stop pushing? Is it a sad reality of human nature?

Likely, it’s all of those things, but Glenn says the biggest problem is the radical left’s “war on men and masculinity.”

“We’ve got men who are brainwashed into thinking strength or confidence is a felony,” he says. “They’re waxing their unibrows, wearing skinny jeans, agonizing over whether picking a restaurant is problematic.”

And the “delicious irony,” says Glenn, is that studies have proven women “don’t want any of that” and are actually drawn to masculine traits such as strength, protectiveness, and confidence.

“A 2023 Psychology Today piece laid all of this out clearly,” he says. “This isn’t a conspiracy or a theory; I like to call it biology.”

Unfortunately, those raw masculine traits have been all but eradicated thanks to the left’s cries of “toxic masculinity” every time a man “dares act like a man.”

“What’s left for you to date?” asks Glenn.

Right now, the options are “spineless wonders who can’t open a pickle jar” or “AI boyfriends,” who, according to pictures shared online, ironically all have the “chiseled jaws” and “ripped muscles” women apparently aren’t into.

But it’s not just women who are seeking AI love. There are also plenty of men who are “busy coding their own AI girlfriends,” says Glenn, and it’s all a result of the left’s war on men. “This is a society that has gutted masculinity so bad that women are now turning to AI for love, and men are happy to let algorithms take the wheel.”

“Welcome to the new reality.”

To hear more of Glenn’s analysis on this disturbing AI dating trend, watch the video 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.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Ai, Artificial intelligence, Ai boyfriend, Feminism, Anti masculinity, Blazetv, Blaze media, Ai girlfriend 

A Georgetown University professor apologized for a deleted post where he offered his hope that Iran might issue a “symbolic” retaliatory attack after the U.S. devastated their nuclear weapons capabilities.

Islamic Civilization Professor Jonathan Brown deleted the message on the X social media platform and offered an apology after many reacted with outrage to the post.

‘I deleted my previous tweet because a lot of people were interpreting it as a call for violence.’

“I’m not an expert, but I assume Iran could still get a bomb easily. I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops,” he wrote on Sunday.

He went on to make other observations that many perceived as his siding with Iran in the conflict.

After he was assailed by outrage from many who were accusing him of advocating the death of U.S. military members, he deleted the tweet and apologized.

“I deleted my previous tweet because a lot of people were interpreting it as a call for violence,” Brown wrote. “That’s not what I intended. I have two immediate family members in the U.S. military who’ve served abroad and wouldn’t want any harm to befall American soldiers … or anyone!”

He later protected his account and made his posts private.

A spokesperson for the university told the Jewish Insider that they were “appalled” at the comments by Brown.

“We are reviewing this matter to see if further action is warranted,” said the spokesperson.

Ironically, a limited missile strike is what Iran issued against U.S. bases on Monday, and CNN News even referred to the operation as “symbolic” in nature.

RELATED: DHS warns of attacks stateside after Iran bombings, years of open borders

Jewish students have accused Georgetown University of not doing enough to protect them from anti-Semitic intimidation from anti-Israel activists.

Later on Monday, President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, and he dubbed the conflict the “12 Days War.”

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

​Georgetown university prof, Jonathan brown tweet, Georgetown on iran attack, Iran attacks us, Politics