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.
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.
|
|
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. |
WOW!
Destroying Israel won’t bring stability to the Muslim world.
Muslims are bloodthirsty savages, no matter what, and always will be.
given everything else this man has said the last couple of years, this should hardly be seen as a surprise.
It’s not advocacy for an adversary. It’s an opinion.
And America could never be attacked by Iran.
Even Ron Paul wasn’t this stupid.
The Twelver Shias in Iran know that an atomic bomb would be just the thing to get that mullah out of the well.
They will use it.
What has happened to that dolt?
Tucker Carlson: daily material for the Babylon Bee
Tucker’s North Korea comparison is flawed.
If we presume that the Norks are truly doctrinaire atheist communist despots, they might be cautious about become engulfed in a nuclear holocaust because they believe that when they die, that’s it. so perhaps the best idea is to prolong life because there’s a big nothing after death
The Islamo-Nazi tyrants who currently oppress Iran believe they will be rewarded by the sexual favors of 72 virginal babes post-death, so they might welcome a nuclear holocaust if they were able to take Israel and/or the USA with Iran down the merry path to obliteration and eternal carnal pleasures.
The Twelver Shias in Iran know that an atomic bomb would be just the thing to get that mullah out of the well.
They will use it.
> Iranian nuclear weapon could ultimately be a stabilizing force in the Middle East <
Carlson can’t possibly be that stupid. So I’ve got to wonder how much Iran paid him in “consulting fees” to say that.
🤔
You make a very good point. Carlson is arguing that Iran would never use the bomb, as it would be illogical. But since when is a mullah logical?
Tucker must be raking in gobs of Qatari money.
When Carlson first was fired from Fox, there were rumors that he had constant clashes with Fox executives as they tried to rein in what he said on his show. At the time, I thought he was the good guy and they were the bad buys in that fight. Now, I can see why Fox execs were concerned about what he wanted to say on air. Carlson without an editor is a lunatic.
When the muslims take over the uK completely, theyll have plenty of nukes
Good thing that Trump is bringing back insane asylums.
I actually thought that he had a brain. I was wrong. Completely wrong.
Tucker Carlson without Fox handlers is like some Hollywood bimbo speaking off the cuff. There, I said it.
[Good thing that Trump is bringing back insane asylums.]
“When the muslims take over the uK completely, theyll have plenty of nukes.”
Never would I have imagined that there will (not might) be a future when we have to actively consider bombing our mother country.
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.