16:03
Tucker Carson, thank you for joining the Meadows. Very nice to see you again after what, 20 years when I appeared on your PBS show. 22 years. You were the uh idiosyncratic contrarian conservative and I guess I was a sensible centrist then. Nothing has changed by those measures. Uh you are now probably the most vocal critic of the Iran war on the right. And I wanted to start with that because you've been pretty clear in your criticism. You called Operation Epic Fury absolutely disgusting and evil
the first day. You also said that uh it was a war that could change world history. It will. And I wanted to start there because I wanted to help you help me understand how you think this war will change world history. You'll control I mean control of the Persian Gulf is what 20% of the world's energy. That's what's at stake. That's why it's a that's the main reason geopolitically it's a relevant part of the world because those seven countries the six Gulf states in Iran control once again probably 22% of the world's energy and huge parts of the world including huge parts of Asia including our critical American allies in Asia which would include or really be limited to
Japan Taiwan South Korea are wholly dependent on it because they don't have the resources domestically. So who controls that and the aperture on the eastern end the now famous straits of Hormuz and also the entry to the Red Sea like that's the same as controlling a lot of the world and so that's what's at stake and so we'll know who won or lost by who controls that by the end that's the only measure it's not the Iranian nuclear program please it's about access and control so I agree with that and I've we at the economist have been very skeptical of this war. But you have already said that this would hand control of the Middle East to China. Why do you think that?
He out. First of all, I don't want that. I don't think it's good for the United States. I'm American and I think the US has been an imperfect and increasingly short-sighted steward of its position as like. But I think there are ways to pull back from empire. There are ways to enter into power sharing agreements between east and west which I think would be the wisest course at this point. But just let me push you why you think it would hand it to China. It's it's just think about just because yes there are very strong economic relationships but China is a net energy importer. So right now Iran is actually in a stronger position visa v China than it was before because it controls the straits of Hormuz. China hasn't shown any interest
in having a military presence of the sort that the US has. It has one, you know, one very small military outpost. So, I'm not at all sure China wants to take on that role. So, I think when you say it's handing control of the Middle East to China, I'm not sure that you can really sort of Well, this is and with respect, this is the worldview that squandered Western dominance. The idea that every No, it is though. It's like, well, they don't have military bases. Well, maybe you don't want military bases. What you want is control. What you want is an outcome that benefits you and that minimizes threats to you. That's the goal. And so it's not obvious that they want to replace, you know, the fifth fleet base
in Bahrain, for example, with a Chinese naval base. I don't know. What they want is an advantage in commerce, number one, because they understand that ultimately that's what control really is. If you're getting to the point where you're having to exert force, you're displaying weakness. And for the purposes of this and really of life, the only question is who settles it. It's very easy to start a conflict. A drunk teenager can punch you in the face. And you think China's going to settle this? I don't want China. Let me tell you, I think right now the biggest winner is Russia, which is a country that you've never mentioned.
Actually, to my knowledge, in the last 10 days, clearly Russia is winging from the huge jump in oil prices. Russia is the one place where in the short term supply can be increased already. Treasury Secretary has lifted sanctions. I'm aware of all of that. So if someone says to me who's the big winner right now I think the big winner is Russia. Depend what you know what's your timeline short term for sure but you know over time a country with you know 150 million people is not going to run the world or even the west. It can have substantial influence in its
region and that's exactly what Russia is. Europe and the United States made a massive miscalculation by pretending we could change that. We can't. It's a civilization. It can't be dislodged, but it's not going to run the world and it's not going to set the terms for global trade. It's definitely benefiting. The question right now is how do you resolve the inherent conflict between the United States and China? Period. And we know that from Wikipedia just by looking at gross domestic product. Who's where's the economic power? I just I don't see any appetite from China to come in and say we're going to sort this out.
I don't think there is one at all right now. So then how does this end? Well, ultimately it ends because China has such obvious invested interests in the region and because there's such a massive advantage in being the settler of a conflict. But let's just move on to Israel because I think that's where, you know, the central point of your argument is, which is that you have argued that this is a war at Israel's behest. And I think you've argued, if I've got this right, you made the point that Israel was doing this because it wanted the United States out of the region. Can you just talk me through that logic?
Well, let me just go to your first point. I wasn't arguing that the United States embarked on this at Israel's behest. I was noting it. And the secretary of state has said that, the speaker of the house has said that. The president of states has said it multiple times. Now, there's a kind of revisionism in progress where we say, "Well, we never said that." Well, you did say that and it's on video. Also, you know, I was talking to a lot of people while this uh decision was being made and I can confirm what they've already said in public. Yes. You're watching my interview with Tucker Carlson from March 2026. If you want to watch our other interviews, including with Steve Bannon and Benjamin Netanyahu, subscribe to The
Economist by clicking the link above. Now, back to the interview. United States was moved to act because the prime minister of Israel said to the president of the United States, I'm acting. Just hold that thought because I want to come to that because I'm not at all sure that I find that completely convincing. But let's just stick with the convincing. It's true. Let's just The president said let's just The president says a lot of things that are not true. Let's just stick with uh the argument of why you think Israel would want to do this so that the United States gets out of the Middle East.
The first thing you need to do in order to understand why people are doing something is to think about the world through their eyes. So let's just do that from the perspective of Israel for one moment. This is a nuclear armed country, the only officially nuclear armed country in the region that has uh an inherent drive to territorial expansion and to for more resources. That doesn't make it different from any other country, imperial Japan or any other country in a similar situation. This is an ascendant country with a leader who sees himself as a global leader as he said last week. So what constrains them in that? Well, a couple of things, three things really. One, most obviously is Iran which is a
counterbalance to Israeli power, right? And also a funer of all kinds of regional problems for them and Hamas and Hezbollah and all the rest, the Houthis. So you got to do something about Iran. you need a new regime or you probably just need to do what they have done in all these other countries, cause chaos. Two, the Gulf States, of course, the GCC, the six Gulf monarchies, because they're the biggest investors in the United States and they're the producers of all this energy. You cannot number one allow them to unite in any kind of like Gulf NATO and two you have to reduce their power. You've got your own new gas field. So it's like and you've got Azarbaian. So it's like you don't need them.
And three, you have to get the United States out because the United States has for 80 years constrained you. You're looking at me. This is like the most obvious thing I think I've ever said. You're looking at me like I'm speaking I'm I'm Yeah. I honestly I mean I'm not quite speaking Swahili, but I'm listening to that and I when I first heard you say it on your podcast, I thought, does he really believe this? and you clearly do and you've clearly explained it. But I find that explanation very hard to marry with what seems to me to be the reality of a country of 10 million people that has had since its founding the United States as its patron and ally, an absolutely essential ally. And I think actually if
you know read Prime Minister Netanyahu's autobiography his entire political career has been based on understanding the importance of US support. I find it hard to believe that a country would want to kick out that support to go it alone or to you know go it with India which is I think what you said in another podcast. I just I don't see the logic of that. Does it have a choice? Well that's a different thing you said because it wanted the United States. has no choice because and I'll tell you why. I know a lot about this topic cuz it's domestic American politics and I read the polling every day and we're going to come on to that.
Well, I'm just going to say it now, which is support for Israel and the United States has collapsed. Absolutely. But no, let me finish. It's collapsed and the Israelis who are acting in what they perceive to be their own interest are very serious about this question. And I'm not guessing, but let me just say I'm not guessing about this. And they understand that this is the last generation of American leaders who will support them financially and with defense guarantees uncritically, which is to say without really constraining their territorial ambitions. They know that cuz they're not dumb. And it's coming to an end. And that's one of the reasons that the prime minister of
Israel went to the White House seven times in one year and was pretty open about what he was doing there. I'm advocating for a regime change war against Iran. Now, if you were hoping to continue the relationship unto the generations, you probably wouldn't say that in public. But if you decided this is coming to an end, there's nothing we can do. Let's get what we can while we can, you would do that. Well, you could also conclude that you thought Iran posed an existential risk to you as a country, you may disagree with that, but you might think that. And then you'd think actually I do actually.
Existential in what sense? in the sense that you have a regime in Iran that has called for death to Israel, has never believed in Israel as a Jewish homeland country and would rather not have Israel there. Yeah, I think that is reasonable analysis. I do think that is part of it. Yes. And I think that I think it is a reasonable feeling for a lot of people in Israel to have, not just people in Lud or BB Netanyahu. I don't think that justifies or makes sensible an attack on Iran. But I think that is a reasonable and also for me then you would therefore not you would want to continue to have the support of your biggest ally for as long as you could if you were planning this war and if you were pushing your patron to
embark on this war to use its military to achieve your ends which is exactly what's happened you would think through what are the consequences of this and the first thing you would understand is there's no support for this in the United States zero. And there was just public polling on this. So we know that there's no support for Americans dying. This country, you know, the debt to GDP ratio is so out of whack. We are totally out of money. We can't afford it. And so you would know that if this actually happened, people in the United States would be mad at you. And there would be ultimately calls to get out of the Middle East entirely. It would not be sustainable our presence in the Middle
East over time if you did this. You would also know that we had an operation in June which they also forced. BB called on Monday and said to the president of the United States, I'm doing this week. That's why we did it. And you could say that you can constrain you can constrain Iran. You could live with this thing that you fear. But instead, we're going to embark on a war whose most likely outcome is chaos in Iran. Well, can I just stop you there because you are predicating this on the war being a failure and you could perfectly well reframe your argument as being Prime Minister Netanyahu has long wanted, we know this, he said this in public, he said this to everybody, want long wanted to have regime change in
Iran, but certainly to get rid of Iran's nuclear capability. Absolutely pushed for that. It is possible that he thought and thinks that can be done and that he convinced the president that it could be done. And let's just move on to this now because I think just can I just ask this because this is really important. I think you in your explanations you're making excuses for Israel then say but another question of course you are because you started this by saying that I'm trying to see the world through the eyes. We're both trying to do that. with trying to analyze I think yes where things are going and key to your analysis is that Israel in your view an expansionist Israel pushed America into a war whose
consequence would be America leaving the region that's I think a reasonable summary of what you've been saying and the destruction of the Gulf States well I think that's a critical part of so this is that's your analysis Israel just bombed Qatar's gas field today this morning so that's your analysis can we just talk about the focus of Israel and Israel driving the decision in the United States because I think that's a key part of know about it. I know you did. That's why I want to ask you about it and you have argued to me just now and you've argued a lot that Israel essentially hoodwinkedked or persuaded or told President Trump what to do against President Trump's better
interests. And you know the president very well. You went to see him as I understand several times before this. Do you really believe President Trump would be bullied or pushed into doing something he didn't want to do by Prime Minister Netanyahu? I love how you've constrained the question. Um, let me tell you what I do know and then you can characterize it as you wish. I don't fully understand the president's thinking as I don't understand any other person's thinking fully. How could you? I can only tell you what I know to be true, which is in June at the outset of the 12-day war, the prime minister of Israel called the White House on secure video conferencing into the situation room and said, "We
are moving this week against Iran's nuclear facilities." And by the end of the week, by Thursday, he had and that was followed shortly after by US backup, which was inevitable, right? because we have a defense guarantee implied with Israel and we also have a lot of Was it inevitable? I mean, previous presidents have said no. That's a very smart point. No, it was not inevitable. Once Israel began its attacks on Iran, that American involvement was yes, inevitable. But at the end of the 12 days, the president said, "Bring those jets back."
President Trump has had agency over Prime Minister. That's exactly what happened. Now, some of us argued this is preparatory to a much larger effort that will attempt to achieve what they sought to achieve the first time, which is regime change. And the president, I believe, was fully aware, and if you said it yourself, Israel wanted a different regime in Thran. Okay? Why wouldn't they? They had no plan for what that regime would be. That's a fact. I don't think they've claimed they had a plan. They just want chaos. They just don't want the people in charge. And if it breaks into a bunch a constellation of countries and devolves into an permanent ethnic civil war, that's fine with them.
By the way, you can deal with the refugee crisis. Good luck. But that is all true what I've just said. Then we fast forward to this winter and several more trips to Washington by Benjamin Netanyahu. And once again, Benjamin Netanyahu said to the White House, "We are going." Now, I happen to know this is true, but you don't need to take my word for it because the president of the United States said it. The secretary of state said it. And then he went on to say on camera, we have all these assets in the Gulf. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans in the region. We have all these military bases and we have energy. And then the speaker of the house, Mike Johnson, also said it on
camera. It's all available on the internet. And this just happened in the last two weeks. But do you not think the president of the United States could have chosen to say, "No, you're not." What? You know, and that is the question. And I cannot answer that question. But clearly that's important because the argument the argument that you are making is that somehow this was foisted on the United States. Making an argument. You are you've said this again and again. It's not an argument. It's an observation. I'm repeating what the president, secretary of state, and the speaker of the house. The three most powerful people in the United States
have said things that the president of the United States says that do not merit being taken at face value. I don't understand. The president and the secretary of state Marco Rubio and the speaker of the house Mike Johnson have all said Israel was going first and so we went in because we have critical interest in protecting Israel. We have a critical interest in the Gulf and we have critical interest in our bases. Like I don't understand decision by the president of the United States and the president of the United States could have made a different decision. And let me let me suggest to you that there are other reasons why the president of the
United States made this re one might have been hubris after the success of the operation to remove I'm not sure what we're arguing about. I mean because it m because the way you present this and the way it is presented by many people is that somehow a very powerful Israel and a very powerful Jewish and Israeli lobby is pushing policies in this administration. I'm not responsible I guess for what other people say. I'm telling you what I saw. and what the president and attorney attorney general secretary of state and the speaker have all said publicly and what everyone who's followed this knows because it's it's all out there, okay?
It's public source. Israel said, "We're going to move." And the United States reacted by joining them and then engaging in a partnership, a military partnership. I think it's the first time it's happened since the Second World War. And there are all kinds of problems that come down for that. But you raised the correct question. That's not a slander. It's not anti-semitism. That's what actually happened. And so I don't know what to say. I don't write the script. No, but do you think the United president of the United States had agency in it? Well, of course the president the president of the United States denying that made a mistake in your view in doing this.
Well, of course I think that I've said that. Let me just restate it. I'm not making an argument that Israel said to the United States, we will go whether you want to or not. Okay, that's been confirmed. That's an argument. I'm repeating what our leaders have already told us. Your question is, well, isn't it still Trump's fault because he made the decision to go along with this? He allowed himself to go along with this. Of course, he's the commander-in-chief. And my argument would be that and has been to him and to anyone else who will listen. That's the moment when you constrain your ally and you say, "No, we pay for everything."
I've said this a hundred times and that's considered anti-semitic. I haven't said anything about anti Well, I've certainly been accused of that when I'm not in any sense anti-semitic. I'm not even anti-Israel. I'm pro America. And you cannot allow a, as I've said a hundred times, let me say it again. You cannot allow a country of 9 million to make decisions that are critical to a country of 350 million. That would be us. That's against nature. It's wrong and it's against America's interest as this war is. And so of course it's in Can I just stop you there because you said you cannot allow a country of 9 million to make decisions for a country.
Correct. But you are implying then that the Israel did make decisions for the United States. And my point is simply that there is much more agency in the United States. I understand this is a very important point and let me just say it again. Trump made the decision and I have said I said then I said before it happened to him and I'll say it again now with him not in the room. I think you have to say no. Okay. I think you have to say no. What did he say to you? You know, I'm not it's not up to, you know, I'm not going to characterize what he said. Why do you think he didn't say no?
The short answer is I don't know. And if I did know, I would just say so. In your copious podcasting about this in the last two weeks, you have made the argument very strongly that the United States has been pushed into something not in its own national interest by pressure from Israel and the lobbying power of Israel. Well, it has been. The question is whether the person who makes the ultimate decision who would be President Trump should have pushed back. That's it. Of course. Bush. Trump should have pushed back as previous presidents have done to some extent, some very limited extent. George W. Bush didn't push back.
We went up in the Iraq war and now everyone pretends, oh, that was had nothing to do with Israel. I was there. I was talking to Bush. That's not true. That's a lie. And that's why it's so important from my perspective to say out loud what is true before history is rewritten and disappeared. And it's lying that gets us here because we say, "Oh, no, no, no. Lobbying efforts had no effect." really we say that about our pharmaceutical policy. No, everybody understands that every policy a large government makes including ours is influenced by various stakeholders who were affected by that policy. But this is the one error we have to be like no it had nothing to do with the fact that his biggest donors were
pushing him to do this or the BB visited seven times in one year. Are you joking? I'm not going to play along with the lies anymore. I don't hate Jews. I don't hate Israel. I love my country. This has happened yet again. I can give you a whole list of previous times where it's happened and I think we need to know what happened so we don't hurt ourselves further. I am not saying don't blame Israel. I think Israel has its own national interest in Israel. We're certainly pushing for things. But I think there is more agency and therefore more responsibility with the president of the United States and the Trump
administration. Disagree. He represents me. I live here. That's but that's important because in the way Israel pushed him into this now he shouldn't have gone along with it he should have pushed back but to pretend that Trump woke up one morning it's like I think I'm not suggesting that to be clear Israel pushed him the prime minister by the way it's not even just it's not Israel there are a lot of people who disagree in Israel I know some of them it was the prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu who pushed our president into doing this and I hope this is the last time that Netanyahu or any foreign head of state will ever push an American president to do something that hurts America.
Well, let's talk about that because I think we may be, as you yourself said earlier, at a tipping point in terms of the rapid decline within the United States for support for Israel. And you see it you see it hug and you've seen it for several years on the Democratic side. You're now seeing it on the conservative side and you're seeing a collapse amongst younger people. I'm not telling you anything you don't know. How is that how quickly is that going to change the politics of Israel in the United States? I mean, it's hard to know. There doesn't seem to be a direct connection, not just on Israel or foreign policy, but on almost any issue between what our leaders believe and do and what the
public thinks and wants. the public begins to believe in their frustration at their declining standard of living for example or declining birth rates or whatever it is that's getting worse and a lot is that there's no way to use legitimate means to change it. Voting doesn't work. If they believe that then they will by definition find other ways and those ways are destructive and I don't want that. So I think it's very important that a government even a non-democracy even a monarchy respond to the concerns of the population. You can ignore them for a while. If you ignore them for too long, you get overthrown.
Let's let's talk though a little bit more about how this declining support for Israel, which I think is one of the most significant political shifts in the United States in recent years, how is that shaping the MAGA movement? I mean, are you now seeing I when I look at the opinion polls, I'm told that there's 100% support amongst MAGA or 95% support for the war. Uh, on the other hand, you're clearly a man with a large number of followers who is making a very, very different argument. I was standing next to Trump at his house when he got elected. I've known him a long time. I talked to him a lot. So, you know, I don't, you know, I don't fully understand what MAGA is, but I know that the core promise of the
Trump political movement, make America great again, was America first, and it was articulated by him repeatedly at every campaign stop for 10 years. So everyone in America knows this. I think everyone globally knows this. The core of this movement was the idea that you would and we could debate about how you do it. But you would try to put the interest of your country at the center of every calculation about how you manage your country and how you interact with the world. It's not it's the single most obvious and single most popular political concept ever devised. Do you think Donald Trump has betrayed America first?
I think that this war is something that he promised he wouldn't do, not once, but countless times. And until YouTube is banned, we'll be able to prove that. And the idea behind it, um, is not only contrary to America First, um, it may be its inverse. There's no argument that, uh, changing the regime in Iran helps the United States. And if there is an argument, I'd love to hear it. And by the way, if that argument is sensible and convincing, I will support it. All I care about is the United States. So, but I haven't heard that argument a single time. All I've heard is the kind of tiresome fear-mongering about nuclear weapons, which Iran did not have. It's uh it's insulting actually even to make
that argument to me that Iran's nuclear program posed such a threat to the United States 3 weeks ago that we had to launch a full-scale war against them. No one's even arguing that because it's stupid and the facts don't support it. So why did we do this when we did it? Because Israel wanted to do it. They chose the timing here. No one disputes that. And timing in war as in life is a lot of it. And it determines outcome. And it's they hadn't thought through what was going to happen next. The Israelis hadn't and we hadn't because we didn't have time to. It sounds to me like you think he has betrayed it.
This war is clearly contrary to what he promised and contrary to the idea that your leaders should put your interests before those of foreigners. Period. We put Israel's interest before ours. Trump did that. BB's not in wasn't elected president of my country. My president was. I supported him obviously voted for him. But um yeah, no one wants to talk about how it happened because everyone apparently including you is so afraid to criticize Israel. I'm very happy to criticize. I as I said I have had a very robust conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I think I've had many much criticism of the way Israel has done behaved over the last few years particularly in Gaza and we've come out
very strongly against this war. I think where we agree is that this was clearly a very bad idea and where I think we agree is that the president of the United States made this decision. That's why you've essentially said that he betrayed the America first movement. But I guess my view is that there are other factors weighing in on why he did it like the hubris that came after the Venezuela like the fact that he's just his foreign policy is not strategic and non-s serious and I think those things played a part in addition to very clearly visits from Prime Minister Netanyahu. What I think is interesting this foreign policy is non-s serious you tell me.
Oh I think it's been really ser much more serious. I mean, if you non-s serious, I would look at nonstrategically serious. Please. No. I think you think it's serious. You think there's a serious strategy behind I know there is. I've talked to him about it endlessly. Tell me. I think the world would love to know what that is. What his pre-Iran Well, I would strategy was this is inconsistent with everything that he's ever said in public or to me in private. So, I just want to be clear about that. But it's in public.
I He hasn't said a lot to me in private that he doesn't say in public. the famously loquacious Donald Trump kind of lets it all out all the time which it and it's interesting though that I can't answer your I think most important question which is then why did he do it and I don't know the answer but I will say that advocates of this war funded the last election I mean the numbers are really the biggest donors pushed for this war and they would include like literally an Israeli citizen. Uh, so we have a problem with the way campaigns are funded and that is exactly why our entire Senate obviously that's why our entire Senate goes along with stuff like this and if you actually talk to them
and I've tried famously with Ted Cruz like hey what's the thinking here? Shut up anti-semite. Our politics is funded by a foreign lobby, by many lobbies, by the pharma lobby, healthc care lobby, mineral extraction lobby, but the biggest and most effective and important lobby, and Donald Trump has said this many times in public is a foreign lobby. And so it bore its fruit right here. I mean, I don't know why they're not the reason I think that I'm willing to go along with quite a lot of that, but it seems to me to be a very strate strategically shortsighted view of Israel because at the same time on Israel's behalf, if Israel is wants to lobby for the continued support that will guarantee its security, which has,
you know, presumably underpinned this for many decades, then it's doing a pretty poor job since public opinion has collapsed. And actually one thing I totally agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu clear I think Israel could be destroyed over this. I believe that we're actually getting to a one of the reasons that you need to constrain Israel right now is because it's a very small country facing a much larger country and they've talked themselves into the state of crazed kind of hubris as you said motivated in part by the esquetology of some of their coalition where they think that they can like rule Persia. They could get crushed and at that point they will have no option and I'll understand it but to use nuclear
weapons against Iran and then we just have a much worse world and a lot of people dead. I think you need to constrain in Israel for its own benefit because you could see this getting super radical. Let's talk about the way the debate develops in this country because I think you're right. There is it's extremely difficult to talk about the subject that you and I have just spent the last half hour talking about because there is a conflation very often. Anybody who criticizes Israel is vulnerable to being called anti-ionist or anti-semitic and there's conflation by the exact people you've just been talking about by the in the kind of firmament of political good faith response or a tactic.
I'm about to ask you that question. Clearly, I think you and I agree we have both been critical of the Israeli government. I just want to kind of clarify terms a bit here. Well, I've really been critical of the Israeli government. I've been plenty critical of the Israeli government. I've told you at the beginning that we were against What do you think of Gaza? What do I think of Gaza? Yeah. I think the war in Gaza to start with was a perfectly reasonable response in response to the horrors of October 7th.
I think now the places I mean I've been there. Have you been to Gaza? I've been to Gaza since the war started. They would not catastrophic. Trust me, very few journalists get into Gaza. Yeah. No, I went with the IDF. It's the only way that you can go in. But nonetheless, you go in and you see a flattened place. I think it is a disaster. A disaster for the future of Israel, a disaster for the Palestinian people, a horror. 70,000 people dead.
Why would you describe it first as a disaster for the future of Israel? You got tens of thousands of civilians murdered, but it's foremost a disaster for the future of Israel. No, it's almost a disaster for the families of the dead kids. I made absolutely I made three points. Let me Everybody sucks up to Israel in this way that suggests they're afraid. And everyone is afraid. And you know that everyone's like the real problem is calling people anti-semmites allows real anti-semmites to flourish. It's like no actually the real problem with calling people anti-semites who aren't is accusing the innocent of a crime they didn't commit. And the real crime in Gaza is killing people who did
nothing wrong. So those are the real problems I would say. But no one can say it because you have to be like oh no but really October I don't know what you're talking about. We're having a everyone watching this knows what I'm talking about. Well, let's get on to that right now because you are critical of the government of Israel. Do you believe in the Israel's right to exist? Would you consider yourself a Zionist in that narrow definition? What does that mean? A right to exist.
The existence of the political state of Israel as But it has a right. What does that mean? That you don't you think it should continue in its existence as a state right now. So you are the you do not agree with Iran, for example. Let me just ask since you asked me the question, it's fair for me to get you to define the term so I can answer it. You've asked two questions. The first was, do you believe Israel has a right to exist? And the second question was, do you believe Israel should continue to go on as a nation state? And those are very different questions. So I often hear the having been created as a political entity in 1948, does that right to exist? Is that what you're asking?
We I don't want to get hung up on the right should it continue to exist. That's what that's how I define narrowly designed because the phrase you used was devised by the Israeli government. Of course. Does it have a right to exist? And so my question to you would be what does that mean? Why don't you answer my question? It's a very I don't know what your question is. Are you asking does it have a right to exist or do I want it to exist? Do I seek its destruction? Fine. Answer it that way. Well, of course I don't seek its destruction. I've already said as you know cuz I said it to you. I don't want Israel to be destroyed or have to use nuclear weapons.
We've we've established that you are in that narrow terms a Zionist if that's in no sense a Zionist. I don't want any country to be destroyed and I at all and I don't want people to die particularly ones who committed no crime because I don't believe in killing innocents period. That's the basis of Western civilization. Eastern civilization it's a whole different view. They believe in collective punishment. I don't. So you're in no sense as ironist. I don't even know what that means. Why don't you ask define the term and then I'll tell you what I just defined it and you said that a Zionist in my narrow term this definition is that the state of Israel the political state of Israel has the
right to continue existing the right where does that right come from what do you mean these are like I'm not being a lawyer about it I just want to know what you're asking to answer the question because I don't know what you're asking me let's go to the you don't want to define your question and I don't know why I don't know what you're asking me. I've already said I don't want Israel to be destroyed. I don't want anyone to be killed. And you've said, does Israel have a right to exist? Does it have a And I My question is, what right are you talking about? Does Britain have a right to exist? Does the United States have a right to exist? That there was a world order built up after 1945 which suggested that aggression should not be condoned into
countries and that countries with borders have the right to I totally agree with that. That's which is why the first thing that Israel did within two weeks of this war starting which is supposedly existential for them was take southern Lebanon take someone else's country as they have done repeatedly and no one even mentions that and so I guess I would be opposed to that because I guess I think Lebanon has a right to exist. I thought Gaza had a But I noticed that as soon as we started rights only one country gets them. No, I did not say that. You're you're absolutely putting words in because I believe here's what I do believe since you asked. I believe in universally applicable standards and if they're not universally applicable,
they're not standards, they're preferences. That's why I believe in human rights, not ethnic rights. I don't think Jews have more rights or less rights than anyone else. I don't think Christians have more rights or less rights, blacks, Filipinos. I believe in human rights that derive from the creation of people by God. Let's just quickly do a little detour and go to Ukraine. Totally happy to do that. And Ukraine, an independent country, was invaded. Independent country in what sense? An independent country recognized by other countries since the early 1990s. But independent in what way? With a so a sovereign country.
Oh, sovereign. Yeah. What did you think of the US installing new leadership in 2014? Was that an expression of sovereignty? A coup? I mean, let's stop. Look, I'm again, if you're asking, am I for Russia rolling over the border? No. But I wouldn't call Ukraine a sovereign country. That's not an honest description of what it was or is now or will be. Unfortunately, I will beg to differ. There it is. It is and will be. Do you think but you have a the reason I ask it because you say you're not against uh you now just said you are not against Russia invading Ukraine, but at the time you were you said it was a border dispute. Uh you were very crit
you've always been extremely critical of the Ukrainians. You've been very sympathetic to Vladimir Putin. I've been critical of the Ukrainians a single time in my life. I absolutely have. You've been massively critical of the Ukrainian government. Yes. Of presidents. Well, I would say that again say that the unelected president of Ukraine who has no moral. Why is he unelected? Well, because he canceled the elections. Did that not that news didn't filter down to the economist? Yeah, he's supposed to have elections. They haven't had them.
They he they are there is a under constitution. You cannot have an election in wartime. He used it perfectly. That set up a perversion. So you there's no dictator in the world. Have you been to Ukraine since the war started? Are you kidding? No. Okay. I have several times. I can experience have an election in a country which is you're just making excuses for tyranny. I don't know why. I thought we were for freedom. Why wouldn't you have I'm not making excuses for tyranny. Of course, it's tearing. This is exactly the kind of way that you argue, which makes for very good podcasting, but makes for ultimately incredibly
fruitless conversations because you answer one question by saying, "Oh, so you're for tyranny." Of course, I'm not for tyranny. I'm simply Why is it okay for cancel elections? He the Ukrainian constitution doesn't allow elections under martial law, and so it's not possible to have elections unless you change things. Do you think it right now makes sense to have an election when you have a large amount of the country, 20% of the country occupied, a huge number of Ukrainians outside the country? Why don't you let them vote? Why wouldn't you let them vote? And then we'll find out.
Is Russia a tyranny? Well, by that standard, it certainly is. You get the government in place and you don't get to change it. So, so Russia is a tyranny which invaded an independent country that had to go back to our earlier conversation under modern law the right to exist in its current borders. Okay, let me I will characterize what I think if that's okay. I'm against Russia rolling across the border. I think it destabilized the world. I think our the American response to it gravely hurt the United States and Europe and I'm really sad about that. Not and I'm not against the Ukrainian people at all. Never have been. I think its leadership is terrible, horrible. I think they would lose an election
tomorrow and I think you know that. But that's not the point. The point is it was bad for the United States to push Ukraine to join NATO. That was my number one point. And when the vice president of the United States, Kla Harris, went to the Munich Security Conference in February of 2022 and said on camera at a press conference to Zalinski, we want you in NATO. That's the moment at which you knew this war was inevitable because that's too threatening to Russian interests. Obviously, to have NATO missiles on your eastern or your western border, like are you joking? So I said the second that happened, we're going to get a war if we don't pull back. When you had your very interesting and
very long interview with Vladimir Putin, he explained to you that large parts of Western Ukraine uh were inherently part of Russia. So the notion that this was because of NATO expansion was belied by what the ruler of Russia say NATO expansion had a role in that? I think it would have happened anyway because I think when you listen to Vladimir Putin, he has a view that Ukraine doesn't have a right to exist and that it is part of broader Russia. But my the more important point is so that was irrelevant. NATO expansion was irrelevant to the war. Is that what you're saying? I think it is a much less important thing than Vladimir Putin's overall sense of wanting to recreate the Tsarist Empire. Putin said to you when you asked
him, you in fact you started that interview by asking about NATO and he gave you a very long history lesson where he explained at great length that Russia that the that what belonged to Russia included large parts of Ukraine. And I remember your face. You were looking rather quizzical as the sort of half hour went on. And by the end of it, it was very clear that he was not answering your question by saying it was anything about NATO. He was giving a much broader historical argument. Then the invasion did happen. And this is important. The invasion having happened, you think it was a very bad idea for the United States to support Ukraine in its defense? That's what you just said.
The United States, the Biden administration wanted this conflict, there's no question in my mind that the United States wanted this conflict. And if there's one, and I hate to say this as an American, but if there's one true villain in the story, it's not Silinski, who was a hless figure. It's not even Putin. It's the US government and not it's not even Joe Biden. It's the entire US government, the State Department, CIA. It's the permanent agencies and it's the orientation of the US government since August of 1991 that could not come to terms with what was happening there and sought to constrain
and control Russia. But just to be clear, several hundred,000 troops rolled across the border in the biggest, you know, land invasion in Europe since 1945. And you think it was a mistake for the United States to say to the Ukrainians, we will come to your support. In this specific case, the United States, the B administration wanted conflict with Russia. I don't think they quite understood what they were going to get, but they provoked Putin. The real problem I had was to be blunt since you asked was not the military aid at first, it was the sanctions and it was kicking Russia out of Swift. That to me was the most reckless and destructive thing you could do. I want to get and put these together and try and understand what
then an American first post Iran war an American first policy agenda looks like that to you is not betraying what the voters who voted for America first are and you in Ukraine's case you've argued that it was a bad idea to support Ukraine from that I didn't quite argue that but yes you did over many years you were the loudest voice who was against this. All right. Um I think I just explained what my core problem was and I felt that the sanctions were the most destructive thing that we So, for the record, there isn't any US aid going to Ukraine. It is all being paid for by Europeans. There are some US weapons that are being bought for by Europe bought by Europeans going to Ukraine.
I know it's so sad. You're watching my interview with Tucker Carlson from March 2026. If you want to get access to other interviews, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above. Now, back to the interview. You guys are going to beat Russia. Good luck. I'm sorry. I think this is too important to have to kind of giggle over it. I'm not giggling. I'm mad at your politicians. They're they're liars. And when they stand up when Kierstarmer stands up to distract attention or merts to or Mcronone to some extent and stands up to divert attention from the disasters underway in their own
countries to say the real enemy is Russia. I see deception and I see betrayal of their own people and I have contempt for that. They're not going to go to war with Russia and if they do they're not going to win. That's just a fact. And so don't tell your people that to take the attention away from you. That's my read. Let's talk about Americans and your country's policy and where you think if you were, you know, in the White House where what would you put together as an America first policy platform now that made sense to you? Because you've explained why President Trump has betrayed it. You've explained why, you know, what was going on in Ukraine was not the right approach. What
is a foreign policy approach that is strategically coherent in America first? This is not I'm not trying to dodge the question at all. I think it's hard to know exactly what the world's going to look like since we're right in the middle of this grand pivot. This is my read. I think this is weakening America's hand dramatically right now. I think the orientation should never change, which is like try to do the best for your country. Try to make wise decisions on behalf of your country. And that is not what this was at all. This was responding to an allies demands. And that's just not the right way to do it.
No two countries have this identical interests. Identical twins don't have identical interests. So like that's just not conceptually real at all. And so you can never go into a war assuming that you both want the same outcome. Why would you want the same outcome? Israel wants a very different outcome from the outcome that helps the United States. So just don't do that again. I don't but I don't know where we land. I mean big picture the United States its policy makers need to understand that we now share the world with China because they have the world's largest economy. We don't want that to be true. It is true.
Lots of reasons. It became true. It's stupid to even argue them at this point. That's the reality. So you have to have a power sharing agreement. And the most obvious one that I can think of is based like all good things on geography. Now that raises real questions about Japan. Taiwan I think is already kind of not a real thing anymore. But South Korea, South Korea and Japan like how Philippines. So what do you mean by Taiwan is not a real thing anymore? The US is not going to defend and cannot defend Taiwan now. should not defend. I don't know. Should I don't that's something I mean I'm asking you to lay out what you think a coherent I just don't think I think we've reached
the limits of our power and power has limits. Like that's another thing just to keep in mind. Power is not infinite. You can squander it and uh and we're in the process of doing that. What about Japan and South Korea? Oh man, it's hard. I don't understand exactly how that's going to go at all from an American perspective. Like in the end big powers want to and get to control their regions. We have something called the Monroe Doctrine. This was another problem I had with Russia. It's like Russia of course is going to demand influence in Ukraine. And you could say it's a sovereign country. They can't have any influence there. Be real. A big
power wants to control hopefully in a nonbrutal enlightened way but they want some influence over their neighbors. We have to we can no longer be the sole author of terms of commerce of anything. We have to share power with China with of course because of their scale. And so there's got to be a non-destructive way to do this. And one of the things that bothers me most is the hostility that you feel in the United States among policy makers toward Europe and in Israel. The hostility the Israelis feel for Europe is just very obvious. How does Europe fit into this festival?
I mean you has to be at the center of the west as Europe is the west and I criticize Europe constantly I'm also so is there a because I love them is Europe an ally of the United States if Europe is not an ally of the United States and then China rules the world period and having an ally means treating it like an ally in contrast to the way we're currently treating it okay I would agree Europe needs to be an ally now you've got a whole crop of silly leaders and a lot of bad postwar attitudes, but fundamentally Europe is our ally allied on the deepest possible levels and no one in the United States wants to admit that. So if Europeans feel threatened by an aggressive expansionist Russia, you
would take that into account as an ally. Of course, and we did take it into account, but you were criticizing America for taking this into account. Look, America needs to create a hierarchy of concerns. And the first concern has to be its own citizens. Of course, every sovereign state has to have that hierarchy. But I am calling in my heart, I never say this, but I think this a lot for a re reorientation of the way we in the US think about the rest of the world where Europe from which we came and our whole system was just imported wholesale pretty much.
Basically, Europe produced us. You think America first means doubling down on Europe as an ally? Of course. Threatening to take Greenland part of that. I don't really understand that. I mean, I personally felt that was counterproductive to our uh our goals, our natural goals. I think there are people in the US government who really hate Europe. And I don't really understand why. And I think there are deep reasons why that no one will say but I don't know the answer actually but I know that's real. What do you think those deep reasons?
I don't know but it's real. It's like the hatred of Europe. Like I get it's you know Mcronone's a buffoon merch is a buffoon. Stormer's totally a buffoon. Many buffoons. We have buffoons too. I get it. But like blowing up Nordstream getting into a conflict with Iran when you know it's going to shut off LNG to Britain and Europe. What? gloating over the destruction of the German industrial base. What? Why would you want that? First of all, Europe is the global center of beauty, which is really meaningful to me. I care about that.
Things that are beautiful are worth preserving. Sorry. And you can't Why? So on a gut level, like why would you want that to be destroyed? Second, the world is cleaving along hemispheres. Duh. We didn't choose that. It's just happening. So why would you want to accelerate the death of the people you have the most in common with who were part of your coalition in the end? But what we're doing is by pushing basically creating the circumstances that created this war in Ukraine, which we did. Sorry. And then withdrawing and saying it's on you Europe. and then standing back as European leaders to deflect attention from their own failures, jin up the threat of Russia, we are putting Europe and but of course Europe can't defend itself because
they've relied on our security guarantees and allowed American troops on their soil for 80 years. They can't defend themselves, but that's because they've been dependent on us for defense. We are putting them into a position where they have no choice but to look for other alliances. And I don't know why. It's just inevitable. I don't know what those will be. I mean, I you know, assume China, but I don't know. But they're going to have to look elsewhere. Why would we want that? Your America first foreign policy would put Europe much more at the center than it has been. Of course. And by the way, that's not just out of sentimental love of Europe.
Do you see any uh current potential successor to President Trump having a view that is close to yours that you think would be the right person to take on this mantle? you know I because I have said out loud what you've never been allowed to say which is the president makes these decisions but he's making so under duress because of the pressure applied to him by the state of Israel and its lobby in the United States. You're not allowed to say that. It's a fact I've said it. I have been uh so slandered as a bigot which I'm not. I would just say so you know that any uh time I use the name of any other person I think to myself especially who I admire and would like to see have more authority than he currently does I think
uh that might hurt him by saying so I'm going to take a pass on your question. Could it be you? Are you asking if I'm going to run for president? Of course not. Are you trying to shape the outcome of the direction of the United States? Do you see that as hard as I can? I live here. All journalists are trying to shape outcomes. That's why they're journalists. But do you consider yourself a journalist?
I don't know. I'm I'm a Now I call myself a podcaster, Zany. And it's with some pride that I say that. I think one of the reasons people attribute motives to you that you say are unreasonable. You know, you want to make me be quiet. Shut up. No, but I think there is also something because I' I've been listening to a fair amount of your podcasts and I you say you are poor anti-semitism and I have every reason to believe that. However, you do talk to and you know have on your podcast avowed anti-semmites and let's let's talk about the Nick Fuentes. He's I think he denies he's anti-semite but I scolded him in anti-semitism in that interview. But you had a what two and a half hour conversation with him which was by
your standards an extraordinarily softpool conversation. But the my point is that you know you're smart enough very smart clearly we've I've seen that in this conversation you consciously decided not to ask him about his Holocaust denialism. You consciously there were lots of areas you didn't go on go to and I think it is reasonable for people to conclude from that you were sympathetic to his arguments. I've been asked this about a hundred times and I have given the say I could give you the same boring answer but um about Nick Fuentes uh my goal as with Putin was for people to hear what Nick Fuentes says because I think every person has a right to speak
for himself and I do think the function of the media um but on partic you particular topic I think the function of the media having been in it for 35 years is very often to deny people that right and I said to characterize what people think and to tell them what they think And I just I just disagree with that. I think every person ought to be allowed the right to say, "Here's what I think. You don't have to believe them if you don't want, but I think you should hear what how people describe their own views." Um, and so, but I did say in point of fact, I think anti-semitism is immoral. And I don't think it's immoral because it's unfashionable or Jews don't like it. Jesus doesn't like it. That's why I think Do you think it's on the rise in this country?
Anti-semitism is definitely on the rise in this country without question. And what is the best way to combat that? Well, the best way to combat anything is with truth, not with lies, not with attacks and hate. There's an effort now to make certain speech illegal in the United States, which is against our constitution, as you know. Um, and also counterproductive. I don't see how that helps. Um, I don't think putting people in jail for having opinions you don't like is the answer. I would say that's tyranny. And now this is an area in which I am literally a liberal. I think the way is to refute it and to tell me how I'm wrong. And if you think, you know, it's outrageous that I think that, tell me, tell me where I'm
wrong and convince me cuz I'm an adult that we can agree. That's why we have these conversations. Amen. Tucker, there were many things I disagreed with you on, many that I did agree with you. I think you secretly agreed. I could tell I agreed with some of them. I also think that I mean I'm going to you masterfully combine something reasonable with a whole load of completely unreasonable nonsequittors which is why you're such a successful podcaster. You know the funny thing is let me just my show I get the last word. Zucker Carlson very nice to see you. Thank you for joining me. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
