Tucker Carlson owns this presidency
Right-wing antisemites are blaming Israel instead of themselves for Donald Trump's actions. We shouldn't let them get away with it.
If someone were to blame "the Jews" for all the ills of modern capitalist society — for stagnating wages, growing inequality and the general bleakness of the 9-to-5 — would we call that "anti-capitalism" or recognize it as something else? Antisemitism we'd call it, and rightly so, or the socialism of fools. So why is it any different when the topic is American foreign policy?
In a piece for The New Republic, a liberal American magazine, writer Liza Featherstone argued that Tucker Carlson could outflank mainstream Democrats when it comes to opposing the U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran. To make the point, she cites a recent interview in which Carlson declared President Donald Trump a "slave" to Israel.
"Carlson, emphasizing his moral opposition to the war, contended that the administration had been pressured into it by Israel and argued that it would hurt U.S. interests for generations to come — and on those points, he’s correct," Featherstone wrote. And in the absence of a forceful liberal opposition, that's a problem: "Carlson's antiwar opinions are shared by many across the political spectrum," Featherstone notes. And in the absence of more prominent and forceful liberal critique, that could be a problem.
"If opposition to this war, and to all wars driven primarily by our relationship with Israel, doesn’t quickly become central to Democratic messaging, we can expect Carlson — or someone very much like him, such as former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene — to emerge as the antiwar candidate in the 2028 presidential election," Featherstone warns.
It's worth examining, then, what Carlson has actually said, and why. If he is indeed a future politician, it is worth interrogating his statements with the same justified cynicism that The New Republic applies to congressional Democrats.
Charles R. Davis
“This happened because Israel wanted it to happen. This is Israel’s war. This is not the United States’ war," Carlson said right after the conflict began. Speaking to The New York Times, he attributed the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the fact that "many American presidents have put Israel's interests before our own." Indeed, the office of former Vice President Dick Cheney, he asserted, was "completely controlled ... by people who were putting Israel's interests above America's interests."
"I think the Iraq war was, to a great extent, a product of that, and I believe that Trump felt exactly the same way," Carlson declared.
It's worth revisiting 2003 because what Carlson claims is the exact opposite of what actually occurred — and the way he is wrong is revealing. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff and no friend of Israel (he falsely blamed Tel Aviv for chemical weapon attacks in Syria), revealed that Israeli officials had warned against any invasion of Iraq, viewing Saddam Hussein's regime as contained and his overthrow as destabilizing.
"The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy," Wilkerson said, a claim backed by reporting in The Washington Post and public statements at the time. "Today, everybody is busy with Iraq," Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said in 2002. "But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq."
The Bush administration did not listen, declaring war on an enemy of the Islamic Republic and in the process expanding Iran's influence in the region. The next president, Barack Obama, then signed a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic. Israel may have wanted a U.S. conflict with Iran, but it did not dictate U.S. foreign policy.
So why act like it does? Because the reality, for Americans, is more damning: they have no one to blame but themselves. And with Carlson, one need not search long and hard for a darker explanation: that the man is an antisemite looking to absolve his fellow Americans, including the president whom he helped put in office. He says as much.
"I’ve always liked Trump and still feel sorry for him, as I do for all slaves," he told Newsmax, saying in a separate interview that it wouldn't be entirely inaccurate to claim that the American president is "under the control of [Benjamin] Netanyahu." So no hard feelings for U.S. missiles, fired by the U.S. military, taking out dozens of schoolchildren in the opening hours of the war: Trump, like America, is a victim too.
Israel is a convenient scapegoat because, of course, it is a partner in the present conflict, which clearly lobbied for the war after shredding its international reputation with a genocide in Gaza. Trump officials have likewise recognized the advantage of shrugging off responsibility, admitting before the war began that it would be "a lot better," politically, if Israel were blamed for starting it.
For antisemites, Israel is also, conveniently, run by Jews — the same people Carlson has suggested killed Jesus and Charlie Kirk. Indeed, a viewer of Carlson's broadcasts would conclude that Jews are a problem everywhere: Last year, he gave the white nationalist virgin Nick Fuentes a platform and allowed him to declare, without objection, that the "main challenge" to national unity is "organized Jewry in America."
If Carlson deems something bad, there is a very good chance he will find Jews to blame for it, from mass immigration — the "great replacement" conspiracy theory is rooted in Nazi propaganda and has motivated attacks on synagogues — to the September 11 terror attacks. It's this vital context that The New Republic omits, and it does so at a time of record-high violence against Jews who have nothing to do with the state of Israel.
Charles R. Davis
To be sure, those on the left who like and share Carlson's critiques of U.S. foreign policy typically stress that they do not love the man himself. "You do not have to hand it to Tucker Carlson," Featherstone writes near the end of her piece (he's "a loathsome scoundrel," she notes elsewhere). But the disclaimer rings hollow after one has endorsed Carlson's view that the Israeli government is responsible for the worst American policies.
It is only liberal opposition to war that is treated with skepticism. Congressional Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries may condemn the war now, but they have welcomed American militarism in the past; Schumer criticized the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran as harshly as a Fox News anchor. Both men may have led their respective caucuses to overwhelmingly vote in favor of halting the conflict, but to Featherstone this feels more like "belatedly jumping on the bandwagon" than leadership.
Fair enough; few will defend congressional Democrats, fellow Democrats especially. But the same could be said for Carlson. Did we really need him to make the point?
Ten years into the far-right takeover of America, it's just not that interesting to treat fascist actors as mere cudgels against squishy liberalism. Carlson may indeed be a future politician — so treat him as such. This American government is the one he wanted and was willing to lie to his audience for. Shouldn't he own it? And shouldn't we ask why right-wing opposition always disappears the moment the right actually seizes power?
Charles R. Davis
Care to advance left-wing politics while critiquing Democratic leadership? There are some better ways than elevating the critiques of right-wing antisemites. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist, addressed this at a recent forum when asked if she would be willing to partner with far-right politicians who criticize Israel. She has learned to work with her party's establishment, but she is also adept at criticizing its hypocrisies.
"I personally do not trust someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene, a proven bigot and antisemite," she responded. "I don't think that it benefits our movement, in that instance, to align the left with white nationalists."
To be clear, those who would openly align the left with the extremists of the right are few in number, albeit over-represented on social media. But there are still too many willing to entertain the idea that their opponents on the right make some really good points — ones that can be weaponized against the shared liberal enemy.
That was bad enough in 2016, when some saw qualified praise for Donald Trump as a way to voice their displeasure with the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. At least then, one could insist we did not know there were worse things than the neoliberal status quo. In 2026, it feels more like the anti-liberalism of fools.
