The conservative movement is increasingly asking a once-unthinkable question: what on earth happened to Tucker Carlson.
The query, in one form or another, has ricocheted across social media as the former Fox News primetime star continues to bewilder many on the right, including a substantial portion of his own audience.
According to RedState, Carlson has steadily embraced positions that place him at odds with longstanding conservative foreign-policy instincts, from his skepticism of Israel to his oddly indulgent posture toward Russia and now, most provocatively, Iran.
In his Tuesday newsletter, Carlson floated an argument that would have been unthinkable for a leading voice of the American right just a few years ago. He suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran could end up being a good thing, a notion that has stunned Republicans who still see the Islamic Republic as the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism and a sworn enemy of the United States.
In recent months, Carlson has drifted further from the GOP mainstream, particularly on matters of war, peace, and American power. He has sharpened his criticism of President Donald Trumps foreign policy and displayed a growing willingness to challenge the role and influence of Israel in the Middle East, a stance that aligns more closely with the progressive left and isolationist fringe than with traditional Reaganite conservatism.
Carlson opened his newsletter by mocking what he appears to regard as overwrought warnings from hawkish leaders, quoting both Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I can guarantee you that if the Ayatollah gets a nuclear weapon, he will use it, Graham said on Fox News last year. I believe that with all my heart and soul.
He then turned his fire on Israels longtime leader, deriding him as a warmonger-in-chief. Carlson cited Netanyahus stark warning that there is only one difference between Nazi Germany and the Islamic Republic of Iran [Iran] is first seeking atomic weapons and, once it has them, will then start a world war.
From there, Carlson advanced his central thesis, dismissing the idea that Tehran would ever actually use a nuclear weapon. What are the chances Iran would actually launch a nuclear attack? History suggests theyre zero, no matter what Senator Graham says, he wrote, as if the fanatical ideology of Irans ruling clerics were indistinguishable from the cold rationality of a conventional nation-state.
He continued by invoking the old Axis of Evil label, only to downplay the threat. No country in the so-called Axis of Evil has ever deployed a nuke, because doing so would be an act of suicide, Carlson argued, before pivoting to a familiar left-wing talking point: In fact, the United States is the only nation to unleash its nuclear might as an act of war. Its strange how Washington considers that a point of pride.
That framing glosses over a crucial distinction conservatives have long emphasized: the difference between a liberal democracy forced into a terrible choice to end a world war and a theocratic regime that glorifies martyrdom. Islamist extremists have repeatedly demonstrated that they view death in defense of Islam, often termed jihad, as a noble path to martyrdom, which raises the obvious question of whether Irans rulers might be willing to risk annihilation if they believed their regime was on the brink of collapse.
Carlsons suggestion that Washington views Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a point of pride also mischaracterizes how most Americans, and serious historians, understand that decision. While the bombings remain morally fraught, they are widely seen as a tragic necessity that likely averted a far bloodier ground invasion, with U.S. military planners at the time projecting catastrophic casualties on both sides, including potentially millions of Japanese deaths.
Undeterred by such historical nuance, Carlson pressed his case that nuclear weapons can serve as a stabilizing force, even in the hands of rogue regimes. Could the Iranians obtaining The Bomb wind up being a good thing? Whether anyone in the foreign policy establishment admits it, North Koreas nuclearization has undeniably stabilized the Korean Peninsula. The region has seen no wars, coups, or interventionist-forced regime changes since 2006.
He then extrapolated this logic to the Middle East, as if the Kim dynasty and Irans revolutionary theocrats were interchangeable actors. Would Iran becoming a nuclear power have the same effect on its region? he asked, implying that the mere possession of nuclear weapons might somehow tame Tehrans aggression rather than embolden it.
Carlson went further, suggesting that an Iranian bomb might restrain both Washington and Jerusalem. Could it finally prompt America to leave the area alone, and incentivize Israel to drop its stated goal of controlling the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? Would it make the Iranian government less oppressive because it wouldnt have to worry about the Wests constant decapitation ambitions?
That line of reasoning ignores the regimes primary fear: not Western decapitation but its own people. The mullahs in Tehran have repeatedly turned their security apparatus against Iranian citizens who dare to protest, overseeing summary executions, brutal crackdowns, and the killing of thousands, with some estimates placing the death toll from recent uprisings at more than 20,000, all to preserve their grip on power.
Carlsons musings did not go unanswered on the right, where many still regard Irans Death to America chants as something more than rhetorical theater. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) was among those who blasted Carlsons argument, making clear that conservatives in Congress are not about to normalize the idea of a nuclear-armed ayatollah.
Unbelievable. Now @TuckerCarlson is arguing it would be a GOOD thing if the Ayatollah had a nuclear weapon. READ it yourself. Apparently Death to America is an ambiguous sentiment to Mr. Qatarlson, Cruz wrote, coining the derisive nickname Qatarlson to underscore his view that Carlsons foreign-policy instincts now align more with Americas adversaries than its allies.
Cruz doubled down, repeating his charge that Carlson is effectively siding against U.S. interests. Unbelievable. Now @TuckerCarlson is arguing it would be a GOOD thing if the Ayatollah had a nuclear weapon. READ it yourself. Apparently Death to America is an ambiguous sentiment to Mr. Qatarlson. #TuckerIsAmericaLast https://t.co/hBIoJgxGkc, he posted, framing Carlsons stance as the latest example of an America Last worldview.
For many conservatives, that is the heart of the matter: whether a prominent figure who once championed border security, American strength, and Western civilization is now rationalizing nuclear weapons for a regime that openly seeks the destruction of both Israel and the United States.
Faced with a choice between Carlsons contrarian theorizing and the hard-earned lessons of history and common sense, a great many on the right, like Cruz, are siding with conventional wisdom and asking why a leading voice of the conservative movement is no longer willing to do the same.
Login