Over the weekend, the United States and Israel launched joint military strikes on Iran, targeting its leadership, nuclear facilities, ballistic missile sites, and military infrastructure, and ignited an ongoing war, sparking Iranian retaliatory attacks across the region.

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn Beck and his chief researcher, Jason Buttrill, break down the most important events, the intelligence behind the operation, the scale of military buildup leading up to the strike, and what could come next.

Turning to the standout moment of the strikes, Glenn emphasizes the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “We knew exactly where this guy was … and we gave the information to Israel and said, ‘You want to go get that guy? Go get that guy,’ and they bombed precision, and it was remarkable what happened,” he says.

Although celebrations of Khamenei’s death as a potential step toward liberation are widespread among some Iranians and Iranian-Americans, they are deeply tempered by the devastating strike on a girls’ elementary school in southern Iran that killed over 150 people, predominantly young female students and staff.

The Iranian regime state media has framed the incident as a deliberate, blatant crime by the U.S. and Israel, but Glenn isn’t buying that narrative.

“Our military does not have evil in their hearts. We are not targeting schools. This is war,” he says, noting that sadly, “accidents do happen.”

President Trump, he says, “knows how to carry a very big stick,” and these military strikes on Iran are not only about toppling the regime and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; they’re also about sending a clear message to the world: “Don’t ever mess with them.”

“That’s how you keep the peace,” says Glenn.

Jason then displays a chart illustrating the massive scale of military firepower deployed in this operation.

“It is significant — more than we’ve seen in a very, very long time,” he says, calling the air and naval power involved “absolutely insane.”

Even though there have been no reports of special forces on the ground in Iran, Glenn speculates that it’s highly likely U.S. teams are operating there covertly.

“Anybody says we won’t have anybody on the ground … I find that highly unlikely because if there is nuclear material, we are going to have to get it out … to secure the nuclear facilities,” he explains.

“We saw this the last time when Israel and the United States struck the nuclear targets a few months ago. They had Israeli special forces on the ground picking targets out. I would assume there’s something similar to that,” adds Jason.

“There’s also the idea of what happens to a lot of these radicals as they try to flee out of the area. My guess is they’re probably gonna go to Iraq,” he continues.

Glenn acknowledges that “Iraq could become the next Iran” but emphasizes that we need time to observe the fallout from this military operation.

“Anybody who was definitively saying, ‘this is the greatest thing ever,’ or definitively saying, ‘this is the worst thing ever’ — they’re fools. Do not listen to them,” he urges. “This could be really, really good. This could be really, really bad.”

“What you have to ask is: Do you trust the person who is in command of this?”

To hear more of Glenn and Jason’s analysis, 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, Jason buttrill, Iran strikes, War with iran, Blazetv, Blaze media, President trump, Iran 

In his Monday appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended the latest U.S.-Israeli military operation against Iran and denied the dominant interpretation of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s and House Speaker Mike Johnson’s recent remarks about the genesis of the attacks.

Compelled to act?

The Trump administration attempted on Monday to address the mounting confusion about the justification and objectives for the Iran strikes.

‘We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces.’

As part of this broader effort, Rubio told reporters on Capitol Hill, “Why now? The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States.”

“The assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties,” said Rubio.

“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher [than] those killed,” continued the secretary. “And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn’t act.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), a member of the Gang of Eight who was briefed ahead of the resumption of strikes against Iran on Feb. 28, echoed Rubio, suggesting to reporters that the strikes were a “defensive measure.”

“Israel was determined to act in their own defense here with or without American support,” said Johnson, suggesting further that Iran posed an “existential threat” to Israel, and its missile production was outstripping “our allies in the region.”

RELATED: Iranian state TV hijacked with Trump, Netanyahu message urging citizens to ‘seize control’

Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images

“Because Israel was determined to act with or without the U.S., our commander in chief and the administration and the officials I just named had a very difficult decision to make,” continued Johnson. “They had to evaluate the threats to the U.S. — to our troops, to our installations, to our assets in the region and beyond — and they determined because of the exquisite intelligence that we had that if Israel fired upon Iran and took action against Iran to take out the missiles, then they would have immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets.”

The suggestion that probable blowback from an ally’s planned preemptive attack on another country forced America’s involvement in a deadly conflict prompted outrage and debate — even on the right.

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh, for instance, said in response to Rubio’s statement, “So he’s flat out telling us that we’re in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand. This is basically the worst possible thing he could have said.”

RELATED: Poll: GOP voters’ lukewarm support for Iran strikes significantly lower than past conflicts

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

On the flip side, National Review editor Philip Klein suggested that critics had misconstrued Rubio’s meaning.

Klein noted that later in Rubio’s press conference, the secretary of state said that the U.S. was not forced to strike because of an impending Israeli action and that “this operation needed to happen because Iran in about a year or a year and a half would cross the line of immunity, meaning they would have so many short-range missiles, so many drones, that no one could do anything about it because they could hold the whole world hostage.”

‘Nobody drags Donald Trump into anything.’

Democrats such as Sen. Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), and former Biden White House Domestic Policy Council Director Neera Tanden made hay of Rubio’s and/or Johnson’s remarks as did Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who stated, “Mr. Rubio admitted what we all knew: U.S. has entered a war of choice on behalf of Israel. There was never any so-called Iranian ‘threat.’ Shedding of both American and Iranian blood is thus on Israel Firsters.”

The outrage over the suggestion that America’s hand was forced not by an enemy but by a friend appears to have prompted a response from President Donald Trump, who noted on Monday evening,

The Radical Left Democrats, a Party that has completely lost its way, are complaining bitterly about the very necessary and important attack, by the United States and Israel, on Iran. What most people understand is that they are only complaining BECAUSE I DID IT and, if I didn’t do it, they would be screaming — Why didn’t “TRUMP” attack Iran, he should do it, IMMEDIATELY?

Trump then urged his followers to watch Netanyahu’s interview on Fox News, where Hannity asked the Israeli prime minister about the forced-to-act claim.

“There are people that say, ‘Well, the prime minister of Israel dragged Donald Trump into it,'” said Hannity. “As somebody that’s been friends with him over 30 years, nobody drags Donald Trump into anything, number one, but I want to get your reaction to that.”

Netanyahu laughed, then said, “Well, you’re right. I mean that’s — that’s ridiculous. Donald Trump is the strongest leader in the world. He does what he thinks is right for America. He does also what he thinks is right for future generations, and frankly, we’re partners in that effort.”

The Israeli leader suggested that it was necessary to strike because Iran “started building new sites, new places, underground bunkers that would make their ballistic missile program and their atomic bomb programs immune within months. If no action was taken now, no action could be taken in the future.”

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

​Iran, Iran strikes, Foreign entanglement, Intervention, War, Missiles, Tehran, Khamenei, Donald trump, Marco rubio, Johnson, Mike johnson, Congress, Gang of eight, Benjamin netanyahu, Netanyahu, Israel, Tel aviv, Politics 

A training manual for federal judges just ditched its biased chapter on climate change. Good. But the same manual still peddles quackery about how science works — and it risks teaching the judiciary to treat models and “consensus” as proof.

The “How Science Works” chapter in the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence” invites judges to overvalue computer models built on unproven assumptions and to accept “consensus” as evidence even when empirical testing cuts the other way. That is not science. It is a distortion of the scientific method, which demands observation, experimentation, and results that can be challenged and falsified in the real world.

This is the posture of pseudoscience: conclusions protected by authority and repetition rather than disciplined testing against reality.

The problem runs deeper than emphasis. In defining hypothesis, theory, and scientific law, the writers omit testing, observation, and experimentation. They also fail to acknowledge that all three can be disproven — even though demonstrating falseness has long been central to scientific progress. Science advances not by protecting favored conclusions but by trying — relentlessly — to break them.

The chapter even claims that science cannot “disprove hypotheses.” That is historically indefensible. Science has disproven hypotheses repeatedly, and entire revolutions have turned on that process.

Geocentrism gave way to Copernicus’ heliocentric model. Phrenology, eugenics, spontaneous generation, and miasma theory all enjoyed “consensus” before evidence refuted them. Alfred Wegener’s plate tectonics also met decades of rejection before the evidence won. Consensus delayed the truth. It did not deliver it.

The chapter also stumbles over prediction. It says prediction is a logical consequence of a hypothesis, “not necessarily what will happen in the future.” That drains prediction of its most important feature: testable claims about what should occur under specified conditions. A hypothesis can be tested against the past as well, but the logic stays the same — it must match reality.

Then the chapter offers reassurance that reveals the posture: “The fact that there is room for improvement in the process of science does not necessitate distrust of hypotheses that have gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community and about which consensus has been achieved.” In practice, that treats consensus as a shield against contrary evidence — a common ploy among climate alarmists.

RELATED: Win for kids! Major surgeon group reverses course, comes out against child genital mutilation

Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/Boston Globe via Getty Images

In places, the chapter contradicts itself, sometimes gesturing at rigor, elsewhere diminishing falsification and redefining key terms. The result is confusion. Its length and muddled definitions do not clarify how science works; they blur it. Worse, they introduce judges to wrongheaded practices — overuse of models and consensus — as if they can settle disputed scientific questions.

That is not the empirical tradition of Isaac Newton or Marie Curie. It is the posture of pseudoscience: conclusions protected by authority and repetition rather than disciplined testing against reality.

U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg removed the manual’s climate chapter after objections from state attorneys general and others. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine still hosts the manual — including “How Science Works” — on its website.

Rosenberg, as head of the Federal Judicial Center, should take the next step and remove this chapter as well. Federal judges and the public they serve deserve a guide to science that prizes evidence over consensus and observation over simulation.

​Courts, Science, Climate, Climate agenda, History, Scientific method, Opinion & analysis, Climate change, Junk science, Pseudoscience, Federal judicial center, Federal courts, Reference manual on scientific evidence, Alfred wegener, Plate tectonics, Robin rosenberg