Tucker Carlson has posted an extraordinary article on X that could potentially stop a war with Iran. As everyone knows, Carlson’s political views are admired by President Donald Trump who sees the former Fox commentator as a blunt, but fair-minded analyst who sees the world in similar terms as himself. And while there’s no evidence that the two men communicate regularly, a number of pundits believe that Carlson has influenced Trump’s thinking, particularly on matters related to foreign policy. That said, it is entirely possible that Trump will read Carlson’s June 4 post on Iran, and see that—once again—influential neocons are making every effort to drag the US into another bloody conflict in the Middle East to achieve Israel’s ambition of becoming the preeminent power in the region. Here’s Carlson:
Mark Levin was at the White House today, lobbying for war with Iran. To be clear, Levin has no plans to fight in this or any other war. He’s demanding that American troops do it. We need to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, he and likeminded ideologues in Washington are now arguing. They’re just weeks away.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because the same people have been making the same claim since at least the 1990s. It’s a lie. In fact, there is zero credible intelligence that suggests Iran is anywhere near building a bomb or has plans to. None. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or dishonest. If the US government knew Iran was weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, we’d be at war already.
Iran knows this, which is why they aren’t building one. Iran also knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.
So why is Mark Levin once again hyperventilating about weapons of mass destruction? To distract you from the real goal, which is regime change — young Americans heading back to the Middle East to topple yet another government. Virtually no one will say this out loud. America’s record of overthrowing foreign leaders is so embarrassingly counterproductive that regime change has become a synonym for disaster. Officially, no one supports it. So instead of telling the truth about their motives, they manufacture hysteria: “A country like Iran can never have the bomb! They’ll nuke Los Angeles! We have to act now!” Tucker Carlson @TuckerCarlson
This an excellent summary which underscores the crucial point that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, is not building a nuclear weapon, and has no nuclear weapons program. The entire legal case against Iran rests on a fiction that is fueled by an endless wave of Israel-friendly propaganda. Check out this clip from an article by analyst Dave DeCamp:
US intelligence agencies have reaffirmed that there’s no evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons or that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has reversed his 2003 fatwah that banned the production of weapons of mass destruction.
“The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003,” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. US Intelligence Says Iran Is ‘Not Building a Nuclear Weapon’, antiwar.com
But if Iran has no nukes and is not building nukes, then what’s the problem?
Exactly. Which means that the real problem is the “weaponized media” that uses its influence to advance an Israeli agenda. (Just like Iraq, Libya and Syria) Here’s more from Tucker:
It goes without saying that there are very few Trump voters who’d support a regime change war in Iran. Donald Trump has argued loudly against reckless lunacy like this. Trump ran for president as a peace candidate. That’s what made him different from conventional Republicans. It’s why he won. A war with Iran would amount to a profound betrayal of his supporters. It would end his presidency. That may explain why so many of Trump’s enemies are advocating for it. Tucker Carlson
He’s right, it would end his presidency, in fact, we’re already hearing protests from some of Trump’s most loyal supporters like Marjorie Taylor Greene who think the president has not done enough to wind-down the wars abroad and focus on America First (like he promised). It’s worth recalling what Trump actually said during the campaign and how many reluctant backers voted for him based on his opposition to foreign interventions and regime change wars. Here’s Trump in Cincinati:
We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past…We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments…. Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States]… We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism …In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will.
This is an example of Trump the “peace candidate”; the candidate that many Americans supported thinking he would usher in a new era of security and cooperation not more of the same ‘gunboat diplomacy’ that brought us Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine. “Peace through strength” okay, but peace all the same. Here’s Carlson again:
And then there’s the question of the war itself. Iran may not have nukes, but it has a fearsome arsenal of ballistic missiles, many of which are aimed at US military installations in the Gulf, as well as at our allies and at critical energy infrastructure. The first week of a war with Iran could easily kill thousands of Americans. It could also collapse our economy, as surging oil prices trigger unmanageable inflation. Consider the effects of $30 gasoline.
But the second week of the war could be even worse. Iran isn’t Iraq or Libya, or even North Korea. While it’s often described as a rogue state, Iran has powerful allies. It’s now part of a global bloc called BRICS, which represents the majority of the world’s landmass, population, economy and military power. Iran has extensive military ties with Russia. It sells the overwhelming majority of its oil exports to China. Iran isn’t alone. An attack on Iran could very easily become a world war. We’d lose.Tucker Carlson
This is no exaggeration; we would lose. According to retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (who was former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell), the US is not nearly as strong as many believe and would not prevail in a war with Iran. Here’s Wilkerson:
A war with Iran would be 10 to 15 times worse than the Iraq War in terms of casualties and costs… And we would lose. We would undoubtedly lose….. Iran is not Iraq… It’s got terrain that’s unbelievable… It’s got a military that’s far more capable—500,000 active forces, probably a million reservists who would come immediately to the fore.
Here’s more from a piece by Jordan Cohen at the Cato Institute:
…Previous analysts have weighed the chances of success for a campaign reliant on U.S. air and naval power. A 2002 war game that required U.S. planners to change the rules mid-conflict showed that Iran could easily sink U.S. ships, and in 2012, Pentagon officials estimated that such a strategy would require a minimum of 100,000 troops….
If the intention is to use air and naval power to allow for ground operations, Iran is equally prepared. Such an assault would require absorbing massive costs to gain access into the country. Analysts estimate that any ground invasion would require 1.6 million U.S. troops, almost ten times what the U.S. committed to Iraq at any given time. Upon arrival in Iran, Washington will face the 13th largest fit-for-service population in the world, the 13th most armored vehicles and self-propelled artillery in the world, the 9th most towed artillery in the world, and the 8th most mobile rocket projectors in the world. The human and material costs would be immense.
Iran’s strategy to combat the U.S. would center around making any naval and air assault costly, slow, and predicated on an assumption that eventually Americans will lose their willingness to continue fighting a war. Iran is surrounded by water and will use their anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles to cover their 2,400 kilometer southern coastline as well as exploiting the lack of U.S. minesweepers to slow down the pace of a naval assault. By slowing the pace of war, Iran will attack the political will of U.S. policymakers and the American public, while also giving themselves time to make decisions and potentially even blockade the Straits of Hormuz to the Gulf of Oman. Despite Washington’s Confidence, US War with Iran Would Be Disastrous, CATO
In short, a war with Iran would be a disaster and WE WOULD LOSE. Here’s more from Tucker:
None of these are far-fetched predictions. Most of them comport with the Pentagon’s own estimates: many Americans would die during a war with Iran. People like Mark Levin don’t seem to care about this. It’s not relevant to them. Instead, they insist that Iran give up all uranium enrichment, regardless of its purpose. They know perfectly well that Iran will never accept that demand. They’ll fight first. And of course that’s the whole point of pushing for it: to box the Trump administration into a regime change war in Iran.
The one thing that people like Mark Levin don’t want is a peaceful solution to the problem of Iran, despite the obvious benefits to the United States. They denounce anyone who advocates for a deal as a traitor and a bigot. They tell us with a straight face that Long Island native Steve Witkoff is a secret tool of Islamic monarchies. They’ll say or do whatever it takes. They have no limits. These are scary people. Pray that Donald Trump ignores them. Tucker Carlson
“Scary” is an understatement. These people are dragging us towards total annihilation!
My advice to Trump: Listen to your friend Carlson and avoid a war with Iran.
