Posted on 01/21/2026 10:35:34 AM PST by Miami Rebel
A new edition of Tucker Carlson’s newsletter is drawing sharp backlash after he argued that an Iranian nuclear weapon could ultimately be a stabilizing force in the Middle East, prompting critics to accuse him of echoing narratives friendly to the Islamic Republic.
In the essay, Carlson reportedly contends that the chances Tehran would ever launch a nuclear strike are effectively zero, describing the use of such a weapon as “suicidal” for any regime. He contrasts that with the United States, noting it is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war, and suggests Washington treats that history as a point of pride. Carlson goes on to argue that North Korea’s nuclear arsenal has “stabilized” the Korean Peninsula by deterring outside interventions, and poses the question of whether an Iranian bomb might produce a similar effect in its region.
He speculates that a nuclear-armed Iran could push the United States to scale back its presence in the Middle East, pressure Israel to reconsider its security posture in Gaza and the West Bank, and even make Tehran less repressive at home by reducing fears of regime change.
Those claims have provoked outrage among many pro-Israel and Iranian dissident voices, who note that the same regime is currently accused of massacring thousands of its own citizens for protesting corruption, economic collapse, and clerical rule. Carlson’s critics say his framing minimizes the scale of the crackdown and ignores the risks of placing nuclear weapons in the hands of a government that has violently suppressed dissent, armed regional militias, and repeatedly threatened Israel.
Some opponents describe the newsletter as moving beyond mere contrarianism into open advocacy for adversarial regimes, warning that treating an Iranian bomb as a net positive undermines efforts to confront both Tehran’s human-rights abuses and its nuclear ambitions. The controversy adds to a growing list of foreign-policy positions from Carlson that have divided conservatives and alarmed U.S. allies abroad.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
These views are not conservative of any stripe - not to mention they aren't even factual.
If ignorance is bliss, you are in paradise.
He’s now gone full retard. Seriously at this point you have to factor mental health into the equation.
“Iran is no threat to the US...”
Regardless of how much money we spend on Israel, that’s the most ill-informed statement I’ve seen here in years - and you’ve got stiff competition.
“There’s lots of Zionist billionaires…” Why not just admit you hate Jews? Why do you focus on ISRAEL and ignore all the other countries?
How “young” are you and are you American or an overseas bot?
Why are Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes the most popular podcasters by far? Because they are reflecting the majority views of younger conservatives. It is you who is ignorant.
I’m a boomer myself just not stupid like so many here.
tucker who?
Howdy, Republican Zioncat!
He was bought and paid for.
I tried to tell people about Tucker even before he left his TV show. He was putting on guests who said that Iran would defeat the United States in a war. He has been presenting ridiculous information for quite a long time.
In other news...I’m hearing one reason Trump called off the Iran invasion is that Israel’s defenses were so badly damaged by Iran last time, its questionable if they’d be able to defend themselves properly.
Yawn
A lot of us thought the same thing. Boy were we wrong. As it turns out, Tucker is worse than a lunatic. I'm starting to think he's a truly evil man.
Straight out of the groyper handbook: "We're the majority," "We're young," "We're inevitable."
You're none of those things. What you are is boring. And you're fooling no one.
Serious question: you say you’re “hearing”....from whom?
Frankly, I can’t see how Israel’s defenses have anything to do with us not invading. Invasion would be a repetition of every our previous boondoggles in Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt that even the most hawkish neocon would advise it.
Only PC opinions are allowed... or so it seems.
The truth is, every time we attack Iran, Iraq or another Islamic majority country, THEY COME HERE IN DROVES. That is a bigger danger than them defending themselves closer enemies.
Israel being a nuclear power has been and will continue to be destabilizing.
I agree, and if they are “the current apple of YHVH eye”, he will defend them. OR, the Zionistas can act like neighbors instead of the Cavalry to the Native Americans. They have been subsuming land at an alarming rate. Look at the maps, and the land occupied by Israel now vs the original mandate.
Actually, billions we give them is spent on our politicians. So yes, it is spent in America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.