After five weeks of chaotic messages, President Donald Trump finally he addressed the nation Wednesday night for make a case for his war against Iran. The message was…still confused. He did not outline a clear plan for exiting the conflict, kept the Strait of Hormuz issue at bay, and denied that regime change was the goal.
Among those who make open cases against Vita is a longtime Trump ally and former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson, who now hosts a popular podcast, The Tucker Carlson Show.
In an interview with Today, It’s ExplainedCarlson told Vox’s Noel King that the war “doesn’t serve American interests in any conceivable way.”
Carlson told Noel that he brought his case directly to Trump, to no avail. “I went to see the president three times in a month before this in person, and made a case,” he said. “And in the end it had no effect. So I tried. But I haven’t contacted the president since.”
Apart from the war, Carlson and Noel discussed each other the Nazi crisis of the conservative era – and how much he is to blame for it. Furthermore, if he is considering running for president, and why MAGA voters support the war.
The following is part of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s a lot more in the full podcast, so take a listen Today, It’s Explained wherever you find podcasts, incl Apple Podcasts, Pandoraand Spotify.
You don’t think the US should be at war with Iran. Why not?
I haven’t heard a solid case from anyone, and I’d say it’s not just the Trump administration. My strong feeling, after looking at it closely, is that there was no basis for supporting this war from within the Trump administration. The President took the decision to do so, but he was not surrounded by advisers who encouraged him to do so. On the contrary. I don’t think there was any passion for it.
So why are we in this war?
He did it, as the foreign minister explained, because we were pushed into it by the Netanyahu government, by Benjamin Netanyahu. Now, to be perfectly clear, that is no way to piss off the president. He is the commander in chief of the United States military. Trump made a decision; it was a bad decision.
But if you ask why he took that decision, it is because he was pushed by Benjamin Netanyahu, which raises the second obvious question: Where did Netanyahu get the power to be the prime minister of a country with 9 million people to force the president of a country with 350 million to do his bidding?
I can’t answer that question, but I can tell you what happened because the secretary of state said it and the speaker of Parliament said it, and I looked. And what happened was the Israelis went to the White House and said, We will do this. We are going against Iran.
At that time, the United States had only two options. One is to comply and the other is to tell Israel no and force them not to do that, because as Marco Rubio explained on camera, if you let Israel go it alone, you were sure that American forces and civilians and interests in the Gulf would be destroyed.
But in any case, Benjamin Netanyahu made a decision about the timing of this. That’s another way of saying he was leading. And I’m just here to say I think it’s wrong, and I think most Americans think it’s wrong.
President Trump has been talking about Iran since the late 1980s Guardian interview he recently resurfaced from 1988, and was asked, “If you were a politician, what would your platform be?” He says, “I’d be tough on Iran. They’ve been psychologically beating us, making us look like a bunch of idiots. One shot hit one of our men or ships and I’d hit a number on Kharg Island.”
This sounds like he is talking (now) about numbering Kharg Island. You know that. Donald Trump is the president of the United States. Can’t this war be what he wants?
I am not denying the agent. I said his organization, which is a matter of fact, not opinion. He is the commander in chief. He gives instructions. Donald Trump made that decision.
It is also true that Israel forced the decision. That’s what happened. It’s not a matter of whether Donald Trump hated Iran or he loved Iran and now he hates Iran? He’s been consistent on that.
The question is whether the government changing the war against a country of about 100 million people in the Persian Gulf was a) achievable, h) a good idea for the United States, and c) a good idea for the world. And Trump has repeatedly said, No, it’s a bad idea. He has been particular about it: A war for regime change in Iran is a bad idea. So this is the change. It’s not that he woke up one morning and was mad at Iran. What you do about it is the question.
Not long after the United States took Nicolás Maduro under custody in Venezuela, you made a monologue and said that the United States, the dollar, needs serious people to run it, people who are wise and understand things, not people who are flying, stupid, without feelings.
Considering the way this war was started, due to the lack of a strong message as you described, the lack of a plan to get out of Iran, do you think we have serious people making wise decisions in the White House?
We don’t see wise decisions, obviously.
I think Venezuela, I think the war in Ukraine, I think all of these build on each other, but I think the operation in Venezuela prepared us for what happened in Iran. It sent the message that you can achieve government change at no cost. And as we learn five weeks, that is not possible in Iran, and the consequences can be disastrous.
I don’t think anyone paying attention has slept well for the last month. I wish I could say, Well, we made our point and killed their religious leader. And in a way that’s a virtue, I think. And this is a victory and we leave.
As an American, I would like to see that because I want to get out of this with as little damage as possible, but I don’t see how you can do that without leaving Iran stronger than it actually is. They don’t have a navy, they don’t have an air force – okay, but they control 20 percent of the world’s energy. Doesn’t that make them stronger than they were in February?
You will find out in times like these. Who can think clearly, who can accept unpleasant truths, ponder them and make wise decisions based on them or who retreats into imagination?
Who do you see doing that? The first one. In the White House. In administration.
I don’t know. I went to see the president three times in the month before this incident in person and presented a case — not much different from the case I have presented to you. And in the end it had no effect.
I haven’t been in touch with the president since then, and so I don’t know. But I think there are people, I know there are people in the White House who may disagree with me on all kinds of issues, but they want to do the best for the country. They are not crazy. And I’m sure they’re giving, I hope they’re giving good advice. But the question at this point is how do you get out of this?
It’s not easy. This happened only in 2003. I was there, in Washington and Iraq later. And it shocks me that we’re doing this again, especially under a president who understood what happened in 2003, campaigned in all three elections against doing the Iraq War again, because it was stupid. He was the only Republican who campaigned against the Iraq War. That’s why he won the nomination, in my opinion, in 2016.
It’s amazing to me that a president who knew, and said he knew over and over and over again that this was wrong, that he did the same thing.
