Tucker Carlson Would Rather See Israel Fall Than Preserve American Power - There’s No Other Way to Read It

There’s no other way to explain why Tucker Carlson opposes a relatively easy effort involving just a few large American bombs, through which the U.S. could eliminate Iran’s nuclear program once and for all, and implement its own stated policy that calls on Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons capabilities - other than that he wants to see Israel destroyed. .

It’s unclear whether Carlson truly believes that a world at war strengthens America, that a nuclear Middle East stabilizes it, or if he’s simply so infatuated with playing the bad-boy role that he’s become a caricature of himself. But his objection to sending a few fighter jets that could secure peace in the Middle East, help U.S. allies, and remove the nuclear threat posed by a regime that has sworn to destroy America - feels inexplicable.

Carlson’s claim that the push for war is driven by the “Israel lobby” reveals a deeper truth: he and others opposing a strike understand it could eliminate the existential threat to Israel - and they’re willing to let that threat persist.

And all this while we're also talking about a future potential threat to the security of Europe and America which will also persist.

The question no one is asking Carlson and his ilk is: What do you plan to do the day after Iran possesses a nuclear weapon? Instead, they raise the banner of American isolationism. The problem is, while that position may be reasonable and even morally valid, it clashes with the concept of American global empire. And America is already in the stage of global empire.

So the real question is: Does Carlson want to undermine America as a global empire and return it to being a remote enclave between Asia and Europe - as it was in the 19th century? That, too, is a logical and perhaps even wise position. But the problem is that once Iran has nuclear weapons, America will forever be in a position where it no longer has the space or flexibility to return to global dominance. That’s why Britain, France, and Germany also oppose a nuclear Iran - because they, too, understand that the West’s ability to act and trade globally will be significantly constrained.

You can’t argue in favor of Carlson’s isolationism on the one hand, and on the other hand ignore the fact that such a stance could end up triggering a major attack against the west - and forever limit it's margin of action . Especially when the threat in question can currently be removed - now that Israel has already begun the job. From a risk-management perspective, it seems that despite Carlson’s idealism and Trump’s isolationist stance, it is worth it for America to pay the small price in the shortm term in order to keep future doors open for its imperial role in the long run.

In the meantime, it must be acknowledged: Israel made a grave mistake by reaching a point where it needs help from someone else.

The U.S. must ask itself whether its strategic interests justify a strike. That decision belongs to the President.